Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by CHRLZ
The next thing I propose to do is to look carefully at the path taken by the Apollo missions as they left orbit, and headed for the Moon.

You're assuming they actually went to the moon right ?
How did they get past the radiation problem posted in the above video ?
The one many respected scientists say is a major problem. huh ?

reply to post by CHRLZ
Your not armed at all with NASA links...
NASA has no credibility...

So, ppk, your points are:
- you can post youtube videos, and are happy to believe whatever they say, even after the source has been proven to be a liar and pretender.

- a space shuttle pilot saw a bright flash, so that proves Apollo was a hoax. (despite the fact that earlier in the thread this effect was discussed and it was shown that it was first noticed by Apollo astronauts, and the cause was explained...)

- you can give the National Academies front page link, BUT NO ACTUAL QUOTE from that source.
(PPK always hopes you won't visit his links, and is very careful now not to quote, because the quote gets found and the context revealed...)
So PPK, please quote the bit about them not being able to get to the MOON. In context, in a research report.

I DARE YOU.

"Adding more shielding can make spacecraft too heavy and is too expensive"

Now here's why PPK doesn't like to quote... he gets BUSTED. If you actually go a little farther than the brief attention-grabbing article he bravely quotes (but doesn't cite), you will see that the ACTUAL NRC REPORT being discussed, includes stuff like this:

...Knowledge of the secondary radiation, which is produced by galactic cosmic rays and SPEs interacting with material on the lunar surface, is currently based on data from Apollo, Lunar Prospector, and Clementine and on calculations.
...
The radial extrapolation of the GCR environment from Earth to Mars is well understood
...
knowledge of the composition, energy spectrum, and temporal variation of the “free space” GCR component of the interplanetary radiation environment is sufficient to support the needs of the Constellation lunar missions
...
Ice-core studies indicate that the past ~50 years may have coincided with a comparatively benign space radiation climate, in terms of both GCR modulation levels and the frequency of very large SPE events.
...
Of particular concern is the possibility of a six- to eightfold increase in the number of very large SPE events, perhaps starting within the next decade. If such an increase were to occur, it would have a major impact on the design and operation of Exploration systems...

Context changes everything, doesn't it, ppk? If you leave out stuff - like them saying that the radiation hazard was easily manageable for a short mission (Constellation) like Apollo, and their concerns were mainly about longer missions and increasing solar activity, it does sound rather different to *your* 'very special' take on things.


Is all this something to do with living in Sydney?


PS - A reminder - when will you either post your 'slow motion' videos, or admit you have nothing you are brave enough to debate?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Your not armed at all with NASA links...
NASA has no credibility...

If that's the summation of your expertise, why did you bother appearing?

Explain what is wrong with the data, and what the actual flight path was, or stop wasting the forum's time with flippant, contentless posts.

Nah it doesn't really matter.

No one will believe that the Apollo missions were fake...until we hit year 2030 and still have not landed on Mars or the Moon. Then people might start to believe.

reply to post by packinupngoin


More idle nonsense, with no content, reason or rationality??

Why not actually READ the thread? Too technical??

If you'd rather not read, but just look at pictures....then why not check out the PHOTOGRAPHS of the Apollo equipment that is ON THE MOON!!!

Anyone who isn't already rabidly wedded to the "Hoax" crap will be able to open theri eyes, and do the proper Web searches, to find the information.

I'll let people do this on their own...they may learn something along the way.

WHILST at it, BTW...here's another challenge for you Apollo "deniers":

Explain, in your own words why there is SO MUCH data out there, freely available just on the Web alone (not to mention millions of pages of PRINTED information, in hundreds of books, technical manuals, catalogues, etc) that document to the smallest detail the ENTIRE manned space program, as mounted by the USA, and NASA.

I'd really like to hear somebody post a cogent, thoughtful, and reasoned explanation as to just HOW all of that data, all if it which hangs together perfectly, logically, and is historically verifiable....how ALL of that was somehow...."faked"....

Should be dead easy for you "deniers"...right? Because, YOU know so, so much more than anyone else...you have god-like powers of observation, far better than we mere scientific-minded folks. You have a sort of "faith" in this crapola that you believe so vehemently. SO, with that certanity of "faith", then of course, you MUST be correct, and everyone is wrong...right? Is THAT how you view it?

If so...then PROVE it!

Originally posted by CHRLZ
you can post youtube videos, and are happy to believe whatever they say, even after the source has been proven to be a liar and pretender.

Well, the thread is about about Jarrah White and his Moonfaker videos, which just happen to be on youtube.

In the videos are some really interesting interviews with many of the apollo astronauts regarding the radiation hazard, and why we still can't go back today. See above videos.

The interview with Alan Bean is really interesting. @ about 4 mins (see last post back a page)

edit: last post back a page.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Uh look its really not that serious to me. I wasn't even born yet so how can I declare it to be fake? However I am growing tired. Its been thirty years +. I say asking whether the Apollo program is fake is futile. Asking why we have not been back to the Moon is important. How will you feel about our space program when it is 2040 and NASA says "We will definitely put a man on Mars by 2052"?

reply to post by ppk55


I've seen all of his videos. What do you think about his Marsfaker vids and also have you seen that Space Station vid by Arc?

reply to post by packinupngoin


Oh...well, now that you've mentioned your age, it is less surprising that the "deniers" and their hoax BS is able to grab your attention.

"JW" (the topic of this thread) is a prime example. So are a few other "YouTube" posters (who seem to lack a grasp on reality...and physics, and science, and just about every other discipline required in order to properly understand...what a shame, if this is the state of education, nowadays...) "Other" YT posters...one was just mentioned, up above, by packinupngoin. Used his 'nickname'...(Arc)...but, ALL of those dunces (including 'JW') haven't a clue, and even WHEN facts are shoved under their noses, they refuse to learn.

However, I see WHY this "hoax" crap gets traction amongst the young, so readily:

Asking why we have not been back to the Moon is important.

Well...important how?

The answer to that question is DEAD easy to unsderstand, IF you bother to research into it. AND, the answer has been given dozens of times, right here on ATS, in the MANY, many "hoax" threads that have popped up on occasion. Too bad the answer just gets buried, or is ignored....(I will let YOU look it up, for yourself. Self-motivated discovery, again, can be a route to education...)

This next quote? Just a lot of hyperbole....

How will you feel about our space program when it is 2040 and NASA says "We will definitely put a man on Mars by 2052"?

I guess I have to spill the beans.... the ONLY impediment to continued MANNED space exploration (to include the Moon...and ultimately Mars) begins with a simple concept: Politics.


Well...'simple' isn't a very good description, as anyone who follows politics knows...but, HERE is a word everyone can understand: MONEY.

It is that simple --- MONEY. Combined with political will...which points back to MONEY again.


Look up the history of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, 1961-1972

Research into the budget allotments, and the Congressional funding arguments, and the constant see-sawing that went on, over the MONEY. It was a continuing battle, NASA had to beg, plead and pull out every political favor possible (to include using the spectre of the USSR, being that it was the 'cold war' era)...the assassination of Kennedy 'helped', to some extent as well. Gave it (the 'race') that sentimental push, it was a card that they played well, to capitalize on the dead President's memory...

Now, maybe that snippet has piqued your interest...maybe not. BUT, the answer as to the Moon, and the "return", is in there.

Mars? That represents a great deal more challenges, frankly....a lot of discussions are in this thread, lately, about radiation. For the relatively brief exposures on a trip to the Moon and back, the radiation was not a serious threat. BUT, on very long, extended months to YEARS in space, it does become an issue. A great deal of MONEY, and the political backing to keep the hounds at bay, will be required. But, knowing how American politics work....does anyone really envision a Congress that would have the foresight to sustain an endeavor that would cover DECADES to see results?? Nope...NOT this country, NOT the way the politics work.


BTW...I forget the exact numbers, but during the 1960s, with all the hand-wringing and complaining by some in Congress, and some in public, about NASA's budget, and the (to the naysayers) "waste" of money on Apollo....because all they did was look at total $$$, and total amounts in budgets...when you figure out, by dividing all money spent by the total population at the time... Apollo ended up costing each man, woman and child in the USA about $0.25 per month, for the ~ten years or so....

$3 per year!!! (Children don't pay taxes, of course...and back then, few women worked outsidet he home...so you can ramp that up, if you wish, by just counting the MEN...but still, very meager cost, for the results).

ALAS...all people see is a price tag, and there goes the Program. Emotions, and idiocy and lack of ofrward-thinking always get in the way.




[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

How can 2 well respected astronauts, Alan Bean and Buzz Aldrin have such differing accounts of what actually happened re: the radiation hazard

jump to about 8 mins.

reply to post by ppk55


Oh...I can't WAIT to see that, and blow it apart!!!!! (Oh, no..is it made by JW??? DOES HE SPEAK in it?? Will my ears bleed???? Oy, vey....)

Unfortunately, no sound card (darn hotel computer...) Will venture out to another site later.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


It's the astronauts speaking.
Unless JW has edited their video and voices. See above video and judge for yourself.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by ppk55]

Kind of sad that he is still banging the drum about the "wind moving the flag" garbage, even though it has been debunked a hundred times over.

Tens of thousands of engineers, hundreds of astronauts - all in on the conspiracy, and not a single one of them has ever revealed the "truth".

Such silliness, such inability to comprehend the scale of the achievement.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Retseh]

Actually he's 'banging the drum' about just about every moon hoax issue there is.
And at the moment we're talking about the radiation issues. See above video.
Part 17 from the moonfaker series.

edit: hear the astronauts speak for themselves.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ppk55]

Originally posted by ppk55
How can 2 well respected astronauts, Alan Bean and Buzz Aldrin have such differing accounts of what actually happened re: the radiation hazard

jump to about 8 mins.

Here's a summary: We know very little about the radiation in Van Allen belt. Two guys are allegedly bombarded with radiation from the Van Allen belt. Buzz Aldrin one sees bright flashes when going to sleep. Alan Bean one sees starlike things flashing past his eyes at other times, but not when going to sleep. Because they experienced the radiation in slightly different ways, the moon landing was a hoax.

I'll just ask one question: Considering the fact that we know very little about this radiation, is it at least plausible that it might have affected the vision of those two guys in slighty different ways? And still, even if we assume that the radiation affects the eyes of everyone in exactly the same way, the brain still has to process this completely new kind of sensory input. And we do know everyone's brains are not alike and there are small differences.

I just find it slighty confusing that the guy can claim first that we know very little about the radiation and its effects, and in the next sentence he is claiming that that radiation should have affected the vision of those two guys in exactly the same way.

Then Alan Bean claims they weren't discovered before Apollo 12. He could have just honestly forgotten.

Edit: oh, and yet again, as we know very little about the van allen belt, could it be possible that the amount of radiation, the type of radiation, and maybe some other factors are different at different points of the van allen belt at different times? That could also affect their experiences?

In any case, I'm just so surprised that you can make so bold claims about the effects of the radiation when we know very little about it.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by MacAnkka]

reply to post by MacAnkka

Then Alan Bean claims they weren't discovered before Apollo 12. He could have just honestly forgotten.

THAT is the most rational explanation yet.

Memories fade, are sometimes confused with others...after four decades, especially! (I forget stuff, too, after retiring from flying...every year, more is lost to memory. A quick review, and it comes back quickly, though).

But, anyway..this "radiation hazard" is just a bunch of over-hyped hoopla from 'JW', yet again.

The 'flashes' the Astronauts 'saw' have been explained. Neurons in the optic nerves can sometimes encounter a random, stray cosmic particle.

Rarer, but still documented, occurences happen, even here on the ground, protected as we are by the magnetosphere. SOME particles still get through.

THAT is one of the causes of evolution, BTW...a randomized interaction, every so often, of energetic particles from space affecting DNA, RNA, etc. Multiplied by number of organisms, cells, and time (generations of the species), of course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A thought, and question re: YouTube (didn't think it deserved its own thread).

Does anyone know if charlatans like, say..."JarrahWhite" (or any of the many, many others who post garbage and nonsense) profit, in some way, from YouTube??? What would be their motivation, otherwise??

Because, I know little about YT, except how to look at videos, and post them here!



[edit on 9 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ppk55
Actually he's 'banging the drum' about just about every moon hoax issue there is.
And at the moment we're talking about the radiation issues. See above video.
Part 17 from the moonfaker series.

edit: hear the astronauts speak for themselves.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by ppk55]

Watching the videos, I don't see much that invalidates the Apollo missions. Since both the astronauts interviews say that we did go to the moon, what's the point?

What, exactly, is the problem with what they said? (In your own words)

Originally posted by MacAnkka

Then Alan Bean claims they weren't discovered before Apollo 12. He could have just honestly forgotten.

Note how quickly the "weren't discovered yet" quote goes by. Knowing by now that Jarrah is not averse to lying outright in his videos, I'd prefer to see the quote in context before rendering a final opinion.

And as said before, I fail to see how that entire interminable video is any evidence against Apollo.

I have request I'd like to make to the "pro-hoax" people.

You keep claiming we never went to the moon, that the "official" timeline and the related material is falsified. You keep nitpicking about every single tiny little detail that you either do not understand or feel is strange.

It would make your case at least slightly more compelling if you had a PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE. You don't believe we landed on the moon. What do you think happend, then?

This is what I ask for:
- a plausible timeline of events for the Apollo project hoax
- A list of people involved, and descriptions of their involvement

I'm not even asking for any proof of a moon hoax at this point. All I'm asking for is a plausible alternative to the official story.

After that, you can expect to hear some sort of counter-arguments and nitpicking.

All in all,I'm getting tired of you people constantly claiming we couldn't have gone to the moon. Here's my response to that: the alternative is even more implausible! we couldn't have faked it! Please, at least try to prove me wrong.


edit:

Note how quickly the "weren't discovered yet" quote goes by. Knowing by now that Jarrah is not averse to lying outright in his videos, I'd prefer to see the quote in context before rendering a final opinion.

Yeah, I was wondering the exact same thing

[edit on 9-6-2010 by MacAnkka]