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: 90
377
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosMDont you know how to use google books?

Not really, if I want a book, I buy it. There's something about paper.
y which issue was your best proof? I'm guessin' it's probably not radiation, now...


and so forth and so forth...


After reading CHRLZ's last post I will hereby announce I won the argument.
CHRLZ has stopped debating and has filled the post with clucking.
I provided quotes from books that all state how problematic radiation was to the Soviets.

CHRLZ wants us to waste time with how dangerous solar flares are compared to sunshine. Sorry CHRLZ, thats just a tactic of distraction. And he thinks that by posting an image of text from a book somehow makes what is said in that text irrelevant for the discussion.


Furthermore CHRLZ does not want to cite his source because he probably got it from NASA, and I would bet its paraphrased. My source had quoted text. What was relevant was the quoted text not who quoted the text. Thats why a link to that source was not relevant. Now if CHRLZ could prove the text was misquoted, that would be another issue. But he didnt. So the text stands as it is.

But irregardless I have provide other text with similar description.
USSR's concern was radiation from SOLAR FLARES.
The text didnt say INTENSE Solar Flares.
And even if it did, it's still RADIATION.

So lets recap, by 1963, long after the discovery of the VA BELTS, the Soviets were not planning on sending a man to the moon because RADIATION from Solar Flares (that could QUICKLY kill) and the effects of weightlessness were a big issue for them. I mean how hard is that to understand? There is no reading between the lines here, or mincing of words.

Now the question one can have is, did Soviets after 1963 solve the problem of Radiation and Weightlessness? Well I haven't found any evidence for them overcoming the problem of radiation, has CHRLZ? Thats all he had to do. But he didnt. Because he knows the problem is there, and always has been there to this day. And thats why NASA is making a big deal about RADIATION in space now using words like space is "awash" in radiation. Well is that a good thing? Why wasnt this a problem back in the '60's?



Radiation is either generally classified as low LET or high LET depending on the amount of damage caused by the amount of energy transferred to material exposed to such radiation.

For example, medical x-ray scans are considered low LET radiation because little damage is done to the living cells it comes in contact with in its travels.

However, radiation in space is considered high LET because it has the potential of causing a large amount of damage when it comes into contact with cells and tissues of the human body. High-LET radiation is made up of high-energy protons, charged particles, and gamma radiation.

Solar flares from the Sun, for example, are a source of high-LET radiation. Astronauts must protect themselves while in space when solar flares are increasingly active on the Sun. In addition, electronic devices orbiting in space and on the surface of Earth are often adversely affected by such high-LET radiation.



CHRLZ thinks he is smarter than the Soviets, because he thinks weightlessness and radiation is not an issue for deep space travel.




And he makes the point that on the moon one is not that weightless... sure, but why do people keep forgetting about the guy in the CM?



The guy in the CM who goes around the darkside of the moon but doesn't see stars? *cough* Collins *cough* ahem...

wait... whats that?

LOL

The guy in the CM who the whole mission is floating in space yet we dont hear any complaining of weightlessness sickness?

I mean look at the wear and tear on these guys!

That must have been some relaxing eight day honey-moon!







posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Now the question one can have is, did Soviets after 1963 solve the problem of Radiation and Weightlessness? Well I haven't found any evidence for them overcoming the problem of radiation, has CHRLZ? Thats all he had to do. But he didnt. Because he knows the problem is there, and always has been there to this day. And thats why NASA is making a big deal about RADIATION in space now using words like space is "awash" in radiation. Well is that a good thing? Why wasnt this a problem back in the '60's?



Yes, the Soviets were so flummoxed by radiation and weightlessness that they cancel their moon program (which isn't remotely true, they cancelled it because the N1 kept exploding) and instead concentrate on a spacestation. Which, of course, makes the problem of weightlessness even worse, becuase the cosmonauts on Mir spent MONTHS in near zero gravity, not days, like a moon mission.

Brilliant, Foos, just brilliant.

So Foos, are you saying the Shuttle and ISS are fake too?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Amazing Foos, so the International Space Station must be fake too then I guess, as they spend months on it weightless. I must imagine seeing it fly over every day and when I, other Radio Amateurs and Schools have spoken to them on the Ham Radio it's just a signal being reflected off of bog gasses on Venus or something yeah?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You think you've "won"???


Strange definition, and ego problems too...wow.

What you do, for the entire thread, is pick and choose, selecting out-of-context snippets, all the while displaying your complete lack of understanding about anything involving the space program, space travel and technology, and most science in general. I don't think anyone can be that hard-wired to believe a "hoax" conspiracy, in view of all the contrary evidence. I call BS on your game, here.

Your main M.O. is to dart, willy-nilly from one perceived "gotcha" to another, and never addressing the actual cases (all of them) where you are shown to be incorrect.

Right now, the apparent fascination with "radiation" (which is STILL not understood by you....or intentionally, as part of the game, ignored.... despite the many, many explanations that have been forthcoming) is enhanced by the subsidiary, silly, silly 'opinion' (to you) that weightlessness is a "problem" so severe as to be a hindrance to the Apollo missions, as they occured.

It has already been presented, to you, that a Gemini mission set A RECORD (at the time) for the most consecutive days in microgragity, on orbit. YOU IGNORED THAT!

What you also have ignored, is the ISS....( unless you believe THAT to be 'fake' too??
)

Here...since you seem to deny anything from NASA as a valid source, and are focused on the Russians, let's see what THEY have to say about the ISS:

(Warning...you will have to read, and comprehend...OH, is that too harsh? Well, I try to be polite, but it's exasperating, lately. Let me re-phrase_ I think you comprendo just fine, but you like to play sick games with people online. ATS takes dim views of that behaviour)...

www.russianspaceweb.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The funny thing about people like Foos is that they probably think people like us are stupid sheeple who believe anything we're told. Which is incredibly ironic considering he is in fact the sheep, but instead of his shepherd being science, intelligence and common sense it's some annoying spotty teenager making a quick buck off Google Ads while peddling his fictional satire online. Astounding!
I wouldn't be surprised if Jarrah thinks his own stuff is complete rot, but he has noticed how much money making potential it has, so in that respect he is actually quite clever!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So lets recap, by 1963, long after the discovery of the VA BELTS.


And the VA belts were discovered in 1958-59. 1963 isn't a "long" time. It's four years.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


CHRLZ thinks he is smarter than the Soviets, because he thinks weightlessness and radiation is not an issue for deep space travel.



From Wiki:


Deep space exploration is the term used for the exploration of deep space and which is usually described as being quite distant away from Earth, within or away from the solar system.


A trip to the moon is NOT considered "deep space" travel.


Can anybody find a single statement in Foos' last screed that is not inaccurate or taken completely out of context?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



However, radiation in space is considered high LET because it has the potential of causing a large amount of damage...


Please read your sources carefully and understand them before posting.

Edit to improve formatting.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The guy in the CM who the whole mission is floating in space yet we dont hear any complaining of weightlessness sickness?


We don't?



Space motion sickness was first reported by American crew members in the Apollo era. In the larger Apollo and Skylab spacecraft, crew members could move around freely and therefore experienced vestibular and other sensory problems in the microgravity environment.


www.sciencemaster.com...

I've read anecdotal accounts that suggest that certain astronauts were veritable Dramamine fiends. But then, if you were a macho test-pilot sort you wouldn't go around whining about being space-sick all the time. Or would you?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The ever-deceitful Foos dumps yet another unsourced quote, which, incidenctally, says nothing supporting any point he is struggling to make:


Originally posted by FoosM




Radiation is either generally classified as low LET or high LET depending on the amount of damage caused by the amount of energy transferred to material exposed to such radiation.

For example, medical x-ray scans are considered low LET radiation because little damage is done to the living cells it comes in contact with in its travels.

However, radiation in space is considered high LET because it has the potential of causing a large amount of damage when it comes into contact with cells and tissues of the human body. High-LET radiation is made up of high-energy protons, charged particles, and gamma radiation.

Solar flares from the Sun, for example, are a source of high-LET radiation. Astronauts must protect themselves while in space when solar flares are increasingly active on the Sun. In addition, electronic devices orbiting in space and on the surface of Earth are often adversely affected by such high-LET radiation.



Here is a link to the article:

Space Radiation may cause Cancer in Astronauts

Well, that's something that's been known for quite a while. Here's another quote Foos might find useful:


Life Expectancy for Test Pilots much Lower than for Normal Population


Yep, it's dangerous to go into space. I wonder if anybody told that to the astronauts???

Strangely enough, the article Foos quotes, doesn't say radiation makes space travel impossible.

Yet another Foos screwup....



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
and so forth and so forth... After reading CHRLZ's last post I will hereby announce I won the argument.

FoosM's new, 100% effective quoting method. Ie, don't quote anything, don't debate anything, and just claim victory..


CHRLZ wants us to waste time with how dangerous solar flares are compared to sunshine... just a tactic of distraction...

So, note well, readers. FoosM thinks that a dangerous solar flare is 'xactly the same as normal sunshine. He really knows this radiation stuff.



Furthermore CHRLZ does not want to cite his source because he probably got it from NASA

But he doesn't know.. Again, I point out that FoosM is referring to an interpretation of a 'letter' from Lovell that HE posted, and yet he is unable to find the original, only the interpretations (by MoonMovie!). And he now wants my help. ..Yeah, that'll happen.


The text didnt say INTENSE Solar Flares. And even if it did...

Say what? 'even if it did'?

So lets recap, by 1963, just 4 years after the discovery of the VA BELTS, a Soviet diplomat told an American visitor they were having difficulties with WEIGHTLESSNESS and the potential dangers of solar flares...

Now the question one can have is, did the USA, simply listen to that and say "righto then" and give up? Or did they properly investigate the isuues and come up with solutions as required?


Well I haven't found any evidence for them overcoming the problem of radiation, has CHRLZ?

No real surprise there - FoosM can't find stuff. I think we have seen this before. That which he does find is largely irrelevant, and from.. er.. 'suitable' sources.. He still hasn't commented on the actual reasons that the Russian lunar program was called off.

And he seems to be very carefully ignoring the radiation analysis that is currently being posted by me, bit by bit. If he remains quiet as I continue with that, then the forum will judge (as they already seem to be doing...).

As the old saying goes, the (self-proclaimed) report of FoosM's victory was an exaggeration.

PS - I'm offta work, so the next installment of the radiation analysis will be forthcoming in about 10 hours or so, life notwithstanding..



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
So People like Tomblvd, AgentSmith,weedwhacker, DJW001 would even believe this government
site eh?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Outer Space




Outer space is the realm of the unimaginable. An encounter with intelligent alien life would be the most extraordinary moment in human history, which is precisely why it would be absolutely impossible to keep such an encounter secret if it were to occur. As space travel began to become a real possibility in the 20th century, aliens in “flying saucers“ became a focus of fears and anxiety, replacing earthbound spirits. We project onto imaginary aliens some of our deepest fears — that we could be victimized, enslaved or exterminated by a technologically superior civilization. Typically conceived as highly intelligent, imaginary aliens represent the ultimate unknowable, feared “other.” In addition to conspiracy theories about aliens, other conspiracy theories surround real space exploration. The first heavier-than-air craft flew in 1903; only 66 years later, men landed on the moon. This rapid technological progress can be difficult to comprehend, which may make it easier for some people to mistakenly believe the moon landing was a hoax.



So again, if NASA really did land on the moon why is the gov trying to debunk the theories with no evidence? eh?

What are they hiding then?

Come, answer it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


They are not attempting to debunk it. They simply list all the delusional theories that are being put abroad by the ignorant and/or deceitful. Any thinking person can refute anything that "Moon Hoax" purveyors put out. As has been amply illustrated in this thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Because thats not an attempt at debunking, thats a PR blurb from a brochure.
Yesterday I saw a coca cola commercial, and guess what, they provided no evidence whatsoever that their beverage tastes well!

Of course, only sheeple believe coca cola exists, since its physically impossible for something to be drinkable, yet react so violently to mentos. (Don't get me started with the Cola-Pepsi Wars)
(Btw: did you know that according to the whitehouse Bush II was teh bestest president ever?)

As for providing facts:
Every JAQ (That stands for "just asking questions") from FoosM is answered on the very first page if you type it into google.

Now, is he unable to do that or doesn't he want to?

Or:
Did the NASA-Nazis realize their mistake in that apollo 15 picture, with the gap in the High gain Antenna, and paint one into every single apollo picture, where you can see the high gain antenna, not missing a single one?

www.honeysucklecreek.net...
etc...

Damn... looks like they got the model kit manufacturers too! Is nothing sacred anymore?


[edit on 4-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
So People like Tomblvd, AgentSmith,weedwhacker, DJW001 would even believe this government
site eh?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Outer Space




Outer space is the realm of the unimaginable. An encounter with intelligent alien life would be the most extraordinary moment in human history, which is precisely why it would be absolutely impossible to keep such an encounter secret if it were to occur. As space travel began to become a real possibility in the 20th century, aliens in “flying saucers“ became a focus of fears and anxiety, replacing earthbound spirits. We project onto imaginary aliens some of our deepest fears — that we could be victimized, enslaved or exterminated by a technologically superior civilization. Typically conceived as highly intelligent, imaginary aliens represent the ultimate unknowable, feared “other.” In addition to conspiracy theories about aliens, other conspiracy theories surround real space exploration. The first heavier-than-air craft flew in 1903; only 66 years later, men landed on the moon. This rapid technological progress can be difficult to comprehend, which may make it easier for some people to mistakenly believe the moon landing was a hoax.



So again, if NASA really did land on the moon why is the gov trying to debunk the theories with no evidence? eh?

What are they hiding then?

Come, answer it.





Brilliant!

This thread is without a doubt has proved Apollo believers dont have a leg to stand on in showing any evidence that man went the moon.

They have nothing only circular arguments and nitpicking!

Not only did Apollo miss all those solar flares during their peak season, they also managed to get by all those micrometeorites!




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Getting back to the informal radiation analysis... First a recap...

The initial stuff I've posted was simply an attempt to define the claim, ask some of the 'big questions' that need to be asked, define the information that will be needed, and give a strategy for proceeding:

The claim...

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

The questions that need answering...

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?


Information Needs...

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)


Strategy...

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.


None of those statements have been challenged, so I will proceed on the basis that they are accepted..

So, ONWARDS!

The first information we need to gather is the mission profile, in other words - the trajectory (and duration) of the spacecraft containing the astronauts.

Now, none of the deniers have named a specific mission that was worse than others (obviously the longer the duration in space or on the Moon, the greater the exposure, but I will use all the different timings when I deal with the actual radiation exposure later on) so for the sake of expedience I'm going to use Apollo 11's flight profile. Here's a description of that flight profile - I'll try to give full descriptions of all abbreviations - if I miss any, let me know...

Skip down to the asterisks if you just want a picture...

Apollo 11 launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16 1969, into a circular 'parking orbit'. After a brief check of all systems, the third stage of the Saturn-V (the "S-IVB" (-don't ask!)) was used to 'inject' the craft (Translunar Injection or TLI) onto the path to reach the Moon.

Shortly after TLI, the Command & Service Modules (CSM) separated from the S-IVB, and was rotated and docked with the Lunar Module (LM) which was contained in a 'hold' in the S-IVB. Then the CSM/LM assembly was released from the S-IVB, which was jettisoned.
On the way to the Moon, there were some mid-course corrections to precisely align with the path required for a lunar orbit, then the SM engine was used to slow the CSM/LM just enough to 'fall' into lunar orbit (Lunar Orbit Insertion or LOI).

First Aldrin and then Armstrong transferred into the LM to check all its systems and then the LM was separated from the CSM to prepare for descent. The LM was oriented so its engine faced forwards, and then its engine was fired briefly to slow it, and begin the descent. Then after a slow descent (and a few nervous moments when Neil had to maneuver over a boulder field), they landed at 'Tranquillity Base'.

The next part is pretty well known, although I'll just mention a little known fact. What was the first thing Armstrong and Aldrin did upon touchdown? They immediately prepped the craft for lift off, so if there were any one of several contingencies (solar flare, injury, damage to pressure seals (suits or craft!), alien attack
etc...) they could abort and return to the CSM as quickly as possible. I'll address the lunar surface issues in detail when I discuss the radiation itself. For now, this is simply a summary of the mission flight profile.

After they had completed their lunar surface visit, the LM ascent stage lifted off, docked with the CSM, and the astronauts and cargo was transferred into the CM. The LM was jettisoned, and then the CSM engine was fired again to swing the CSM out of lunar orbit (Trans-Earth Injection or TEI) and on its way back to earth.

Finally, the CM was separated from the SM as the craft neared Earth, and it re-entered the atmosphere, finally splashing down a bit over 195 hours after it launched.



Well, that's how us believers think it all happened, anyways.


Now clearly, when they were on the ground and up to say 30,000-40,000 feet, the radiation exposure will be no greater than that from cruising aircraft (or even mountain climbers, or 'normal' orbital spaceflights), plus the duration of that part of the journey to the Moon was very short.

So let's look at what happens next. The spacecraft angles away from the earth, passing through some portions of the Van Allen Belts, then travels through what some might term 'deep space' (grin) - but I'll call 'open space' - to the moon where they make a few orbits, and then... touchdown.

They leave the LM and walk/skip/jump/fall/ride on the surface for varying periods in the different missions, and then return to earth in a similar but reversed fashion.

So, we have to look at all the radiation in the path taken through the Van Allen Belts (VABs), in 'open space', in lunar orbit, and then on the lunar surface, and then on the return journey..

Agreed?


But how much radiation is there in those areas, and how much were they actually exposed to? Sorry, we're not there yet - you'll have to wait for future instalments.


I'm not going to include any 'statement' in this post, it's really just setting the scene for the next critical steps in the analysis. I'm just putting forward the information that will be used (and MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED) later.

But before I go further, I want to see if any of our eager deniers wish to dispute the typical Apollo flight profile. If so, they will need to define precisely what is wrong with it, and what alternative flight plan they believe took place.

It's been a bit quiet so far, so maybe this is where they will jump in and correct me with better information...

**********************

Anyway, here's a (VERY) informative poster of all that (and a lot more):

www.nasm.si.edu...

I thoroughly recommend a visit to that link if you haven't seen it before, and you can download the poster. Note - that poster was a *prediction* - it was made back in 1967! And yet if you look at the timing predictions, it was a quite remarkable 'guess' - the actual mission was only about 5 hours different... So as you can see, even by 1967 they had already nailed the mission down in most respects.

Later I will be providing detailed information about the precise path taken through the VAB's, so if there are any disputes about that, don't worry, you'll get one more chance...

But I hope you know your orbital mechanics.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I'd be more than happy if FoosM would explain to me where this here is wrong:

10



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


This thread is without a doubt has proved Apollo believers dont have a leg to stand on in showing any evidence that man went the moon.

They have nothing only circular arguments and nitpicking!

Not only did Apollo miss all those solar flares during their peak season, they also managed to get by all those micrometeorites!



You know the funny thing, NASA could stick you in a Saturn 5, deposit you on the moon and you would still argue that man never set foot on the moon. It truly is amazing, i'm now viewing this thread more as a psychological study than anything else. The evidence that has been presented is more than enough to allow any sane, rational person to see the truth.

So how do satellites and space stations survive all these micrometeoroids if its so dangerous up there? BTW i suggest you look up the definition of a micrometeorite...they would pose no danger to spacecraft unless you mean during launch...lol

Unless you also believe there are no satellites, nor space stations? Where exactly do you draw the line? What about shuttles, do astronauts manage to do spacewalks? Does hubble exist?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
A quick post for anyone with a functional brain, who might be misled by 'someone' here who doesn't own one..

1. Micrometeor flux around Earth is much greater than around the Moon (It's big, more mass, more gravitational attraction - figure it out for yourself). I'll come back to that...

2. Micrometeors are those tiny little streaks you see when you see a brief shooting star in the sky. It only takes a particle about the size of a grain of fine sand, to produce that little fiery streak - a pea-sized particle will produce a very bright, spectacular and long meteor trail. But how often do you see them? (Figures for micrometeor flux in cislunar space *are* out there, feel free to go get 'em...) You'll find the figure is a whisker above zero, and the chances of anyone being hit by one on the lunar surface, even in twenty years standing still, is tiny.

3. And as micrometeors are tiny, even though they can have high relative speeds they have little mass/inertia, and are pretty easy to stop. So, even if you were *incredibly* unlucky enough to be struck, something like kevlar would work pretty well.

Oh, wait, guess what the spacesuits had a layer of...

But getting back to Earth having many more micrometeors around it.... Anyone here denying the shuttle, ISS, every space walk ever done? And the Moon is a far safer place, as far as m-m's go...

If someone were to suggest this as evidence that the Apollo missions didn't happen, they would be exposing their complete lack of knowledge of basic astronomy, along with the inability to understand the very basic logic that earth orbit is a far more dangerous place for micrometeors...

[edit on 4-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join