Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by packinupngoin
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"?

I've read this somewhere else, discussing the same topic but i think it's rather clever:

In 1980 I could go to London, buy a plane ticket to New York, and could get there in 4 hours!
Today, 30 years later, thats impossible.

Of course, only sheeple believe the concorde existed. Time spent on constructing it, was actually spent on scouring the world for twins. One would enter the "plane" in London, fly to a hideout, and the other twin would exit in New York, from a different plane.

Need more proof that the concorde was a fake? 30+ years of service time and only one crash! For the first supersonic passenger plane ever! Do you honestly think engineers could get such a complicated thing right the first time, with nothing but sliderules?

As for putting men on Mars:
Science has advanced in the past 50 years. Now which of these 3 fields have advanced the most?

Computer Sciences
Rocketry
Comparative studies in medieveal literature

I give you a hint: (A funny hint too, if you ask me)

Originally posted by debunky

I've read this somewhere else, discussing the same topic but i think it's rather clever:

In 1980 I could go to London, buy a plane ticket to New York, and could get there in 4 hours!
Today, 30 years later, thats impossible.

Of course, only sheeple believe the concorde existed. Time spent on constructing it, was actually spent on scouring the world for twins. One would enter the "plane" in London, fly to a hideout, and the other twin would exit in New York, from a different plane.

Need more proof that the concorde was a fake? 30+ years of service time and only one crash! For the first supersonic passenger plane ever! Do you honestly think engineers could get such a complicated thing right the first time, with nothing but sliderules?

Let's not forget the increased amount of radiation you would have received flying at the heights the "Concorde" allegedly flew...

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?

Erm...

FoosM quoted, then said:

The Lunar Module's descent engine blew out high-velocity lunar particles that strafed the landscape.

You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.

To further support his mental picture of the dust, FoosM also quoted this (out of context, as usual):

they have determined the shape of the blowing dust clouds under the LM

And finally, he said:

Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).

So no, he never said or implied it billowed, uh-uh, no way, not at all..

Ever notice how Foos disappears every time he gets his teeth kicked in, waits a few days, and then comes back like nothing ever happened posting completely irrelevant garbage?

That's just plain scary. At least others (like WWu and max2m) have had the decency to disappear after being made absolute fools of.

Foos, I think people are going to start to think you don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to photography. This could invalidate all of you photographic "analysis", such as when you can't see the striations under the LM.

So how about you tell us why NASA couldn't tell what photographic settings to use on the Apollo missions?

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

2. How could the astronauts know what to expect in terms of lighting? Its not like they had been on the moon before.

We had unmanned landers on the surface taking pictures before Apollo. Also, it isn't hard to measure the amount of light on the moon's surface by telescope.
------

I'm speechless.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Why are you "speechless"? What specifically is wrong with that statement?

I'm not going to let you ignore this, I'll keep reposting it until I get an answer.

We're waiting....

Originally posted by MacAnkka

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.

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]

I guess you dont get it.
Those flashes the astronauts claimed to have witnessed, could have happened
in LEO. So if you can see flashes in LEO, then all the apollo astros should have had worse problems going through the belts.

Here is what NASA states:

One particular effect possibly related to cosmic rays was the light-flash phenomenon reported on the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions. Although it is well known that ionizing radiations can produce visual phosphenes (subjective sensations best described as flashes of light) of the types reported, a definite correlation was not established between cosmic rays and the observation of flashes during the Apollo Program. The light flashes were described as starlike flashes or streaks of light that apparently occur within the eye. The flashes were observed only when the spacecraft cabin was dark or when blindfolds were provided and the crewmen were concentrating on detection of the flashes.

So Apollo Astros say that it only occurs when it was dark and when "crewmen were concentrating on detection..."

However we have study:

INTRODUCTION: It has long been known that many people in space experience sudden phosphenes, or light flashes. Although it is clear that they are related to high-energy particles in the space radiation environment, many details about them are still unknown. In an effort to gain more knowledge about the light flashes, a study was initiated to collect information from people who have recently flown in space....

Conditions in which LF were observed: Most astronauts (70%) reported perceiving LF while in the dark; however, 11 astronauts said they saw LF also in dim light, 2 said they saw them in bright light, and 1 astronaut reported observing LF "regardless of light and light adaptation." The LF were predominantly seen just before sleeping (42/47). Only three astronauts reported perceiving LF "scattered during the day." It is worth noting that 12 astronauts (20%) reported that the LF sometimes disturbed their sleep; 1 astronaut even reported occasionally waking up because of them. Finally, nobody felt that the perception of LF was correlated with workload.

It was found that 80 ± 5% of space fliers experience LF at some point or another. There is an increase of occurrence with orbital altitude and inclination, as one would expect from the increased particle fluxes there. LF are mainly seen before sleep. As many as 20% of the respondents thought that LF sometimes disturbed their sleep.

Originally posted by Retseh
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.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Retseh]

how when and where

reply to post by FoosM

I guess you dont get it.
Those flashes the astronauts claimed to have witnessed, could have happened
in LEO. So if you can see flashes in LEO, then all the apollo astros should have had worse problems going through the belts.

No, I think you don't get it. The flashes are caused by cosmic rays, which are not affected by the magnetosphere. The frequency of the phenomenon would be about the same anywhere in space. Furthermore, recent research suggests that it may be caused by interactions with the visual cortex, not the eye:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Naturally, the phenomenon would be most noticeable when the visual cortex was less stimulated, eg; in the dark. When the astronauts' attention was directed towards tasks in full light, they would be less prone to notice minor events of that type.

PPK (May I call you.. 'Walther', by the way?*)

You keep deliberately accidentally missing this request. I'll make it AGAIN.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
WHEN will you be posting those videos of slow motion effects, that you referred to here?

Given you (wrongly) criticise others for not doing what they say they will, this seems very hypocritical.

If you don't have the videos, please say so, and withdraw the claim until you can provide them.

Whenever you are ready...


* - that's a JW joke...

reply to post by CHRLZ
o0o0o0h you got me....
I don't believe you came up with any content either...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by packinupngoin

 

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"....

NASA provided the public through testimony, simulation data and a few questionable artifacts information. You believe that that the information provided supports each other, but if that was the case, then we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax. So you want to claim that due to the amount of literature on the subject it must be true, then I can say the same for it being a hoax.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

o0o0o0h you got me....
I don't believe you came up with any content either...

Yeah, I never post content. Nope, nothing at all, .... not a thing, absolutely zero.

When you want to address any of that (only one part of which is sourced by NASA, and even that is verifiable elsewhere), you come on back, ya hear?

Thanks, anyway, for wandering into this thread, not reading anything, and offering your highly supported opinions. You make a fine poster child showing the indisputable rocket science knowledge, superb reading comprehension, and hitherto-unheard-of debating skills of Apollo deniers...

reply to post by FoosM


Ahhhh...young grasshopper....you make it so easy....

You believe that that the information provided supports each other, but if that was the case, then we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax.

"SO MANY" videos and books, eh? Guess what? THEY ALL REPEAT THE SAME TIRED NONSENSE!!!

AND, every last one has been shown to be complete crap.

The ONLY reason they manage to keep going is because of this sort of pepetuation we've seen....blind leading the blind, and it's just WORSE, more prevalent today, BECAUSE of YouTube.

Combined with the fact that there's an entire NEW generation or two, who have ZERO (it seems) understanding of even the basics of science, and mathematics.

We are truly headed for a situation (at least in the United States) shown in the movie Idiocracy. IF something isn't done, soon.

www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
... we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax....

Why not?

It's arguably the most complex scientific achievement in mankind's history.

It's by far the most comprehensively documented and 'open'.

The number of people with the requisite knowledge to understand all the intricacies is quite small (and seemingly getting smaller as education standards drop to the levels being demonstrated by Jarrah White and his supporters).


After all, you have only got to look at the radiation issue, which I am currently dissecting. It is very complex, and there is a lot to cover. Observers will notice that the deniers have not seriously debated any of it at all. They don't have the skills or the required knowledge. There's no great shame in that - it's only a shame when people like you, FoosM, pretend to have the knowledge... when your posts clearly reveal otherwise.

For a denier, it's easy to just throw their hands up and cry FAKE! Just like when they were at school, and simply gave up when anything difficult was presented to them. It's just the way things are.

For those folk, there is no hope. But others will find this thread, and be prepared to do the hard work to actually understand the issues properly, and realise how easy it is to try to make a buck out of people's ignorance (just pick a complex subject like Apollo), as JW is doing. Emphasis on 'try'..

So carry on. It's all good.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by packinupngoin

 

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"....

NASA provided the public through testimony, simulation data and a few questionable artifacts information. You believe that that the information provided supports each other, but if that was the case, then we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax. So you want to claim that due to the amount of literature on the subject it must be true, then I can say the same for it being a hoax.

Still waiting for an answer, foos. Why are you cowardly ignoring my question?

I've said this about a hundred times already but once more wont hurt: Those who are interested in effects of radiation on film and eyes check out chrenobyl footage. You can see those flashes there. When a radiation particle hits film it produces a very similar effect that it does when it hits the optic nerve. A star like flash as described in the thread.

Originally posted by FoosM


NASA provided the public through testimony, simulation data and a few questionable artifacts information.

Testimony of thousands of engineers, machinists, draftsmen, designers, flight crews, astronauts, comm specialist, amateur astronomers, HAMs, etc, etc, etc,. From all over the world.

Simulation data? What's that have to do with anything?

A "few questionable artifacts (and) information. Including over 800 POUNDS of lunar material, which nobody with any scientific background says can be faked well enough to fool geologists. Thousand upon thousands of photographs, which, coincidentally, match the terrain mapping that was just done recently. Dozens of hours of film and video footage, which, also coincidentally, match the pictures. There are seismic experiments. The lunar range reflector. Radiation detectors. And on and on......




Yea, "a few questionable artifacts information". Heh.

I'll repeat weeds challenge, since, like other things, you just run away from it:

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"....

How about it? Instead of just flinging poo at bits and pieces of the program, tell us how the hoax was done.

And answer my freaking question.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I guess you dont get it.
Those flashes the astronauts claimed to have witnessed, could have happened
in LEO. So if you can see flashes in LEO, then all the apollo astros should have had worse problems going through the belts.

No, I think you don't get it. The flashes are caused by cosmic rays, which are not affected by the magnetosphere. The frequency of the phenomenon would be about the same anywhere in space.

Fine, then you must know more about it than 'Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine'

"However, eight respondents mentioned an increase in LF rate (n = 3), intensity (n = 1), or both (n = 4) in the SAA. Three respondents thought the LF frequency increased at high latitudes and two that both the LF frequency and the intensity increased near the poles,"

So, who should I believe you or them?

Originally posted by FoosM

You believe that that the information provided supports each other, but if that was the case, then we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax. So you want to claim that due to the amount of literature on the subject it must be true, then I can say the same for it being a hoax.

Uh, except for the fact there are very few books about the hoax. A search on Amazon for "moon hoax" only returns 45 books. And probably half of those are anti-hoax or non-committal (they discuss hoaxes in general.) And a search for "Apollo hoax" is even worse, with only SIX BOOKS!

Looks like more bad research by our very own "Bad Researcher" himself, Foosman.

reply to post by FoosM


As usual, just throwing junk at the wall...stuff you don't understand, and hoping that someone who is equally clueless will see it, and think it's important?

Your study found a corelation with the "flashes". Big deal. It was an interesting phenomenon. They strove to find a reason for it. THEN, they did.

In your own words, instead of finding random articles that actually show NOTHING to suppor the "hoax" claims, why not explain why YOU find the data you found, and posted, important?

Or, more specifically, HOW did those occasional "flashes" in (either) the optic nerve, or as it is more likely, the visual cortex of the brain itself...HOW did any of thos energetic particles influencing the vision centers of humans, every now and then, affect them adversely in any way? HOW did it impede their ability to function?? What lasting "ill" effects are there??

See....you come in, think you've found something to "Razzle Dazzle" somebody with, but like an inept magician, most can see through the charade. That is the sort of magician who is destined for kids' birthday parties, NOT to play in the big leagues....

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I guess you dont get it.
Those flashes the astronauts claimed to have witnessed, could have happened
in LEO. So if you can see flashes in LEO, then all the apollo astros should have had worse problems going through the belts.

No, I think you don't get it. The flashes are caused by cosmic rays, which are not affected by the magnetosphere. The frequency of the phenomenon would be about the same anywhere in space.

Fine, then you must know more about it than 'Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine'

"However, eight respondents mentioned an increase in LF rate (n = 3), intensity (n = 1), or both (n = 4) in the SAA. Three respondents thought the LF frequency increased at high latitudes and two that both the LF frequency and the intensity increased near the poles,"

So, who should I believe you or them?

More impeccable "research" from our class dunce.

Who are the respondents?

Where were they when they reported the LFs?

And considering none of "them" agree with each other, what does your vapid post even mean?