Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Velocismo


Finally!! Another one who gets it....

274 pages of BS.

We have pictures of the stuff left behind. Recent pictures... You can even make out the trail left by the astronauts walking back and forth.

Problem is, take a look at the FEW who don't "get it". (They are rather obvious). What do you think accounts for that? Because, honestly...I have not been able to figure that out....maybe because I'm not a psychologist.

See, the real issue here, it seems is: Doesn't matter HOW MUCH evidence is brought...not even the photos!! We have a certain segment of society who delight in acting this way.....and for some reason, "Jarrah White" (noise) has become a sort of "Pied Piper" for them to follow. It is mind boggling.....

.....unless there is a hidden agenda.....?

Because, more I think about it, harder it is for me to understand just how a person like "White" (noise) can truly be as ignorant as he seems. It defies all logic.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


"From the Earth to the Moon" 1998

Great series produced by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. It is really a shame that the deniers can't share in the feeling of hope and pride, that we get when we see films like these. It really makes me smile to know that mankind will continue to journey further and further into space. I know in my heart that it is our destiny to venture to the stars.

reply to post by FoosM

regarding point
1) What kind of surface(s) did it land on?
2) See 1)
3) Is the material and fuel similar to what NASA used for Apollo?
4) NASA had vacuum chambers.

and

I see a flame.

1) Concrete, which is actually softer than the lunar crust under the thin layer of regolith.
2) See 1)
3) No, this vehicle uses alcohol or methane with an oxidizer; the LM used a hypergolic mixture. The point is that for all that flame and energy, no cratering or charring occurred. The "no crater" argument is based on a misunderstanding of the physics of the situation.
4) So? They tested their engines in a vacuum; wouldn't you?

and

See 3)

reply to post by nataylor


nataylor - thanks for offering your further interpretations of that report. The report, "Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation" showed :
I still think it is rather odd for flights A7 and A8 to have exactly the same average readings (.16 rads). Is the reader of this report expected to conclude that this is the final word? The report leaves out A16 and A17 so it cannot be the final word.

If I were a NASA writer presenting this document in March 1973 I might have given some paragraphs which could discuss that. Or, failing that, I might have used the same space on the page for an expanded table which showed the ACTUAL readings for the ACTUAL 9 passive radiation dosimeters (3 passive, thermoluminescent devices, placed on the ankle, thigh and chest, for each of the 3 astronauts) on any given flight.

Unfortunately, this table, the "TABLE I. - AVERAGE RADIATION DOSES OF THE FLIGHT CREWS FOR THE APOLLO MISSIONS" is presented as "take it-or leave it" type of information. That is why I continue to remain quite skeptical of this report and this table.

Happy Birthday, Apollo 8! (Launched December 21, 1968)
Total Lunar Eclipse tonight on the eve of Apollo 8!

"Mitigating Astronauts' Health Risks from Space Radiation" By Francis A Cusinotta, Ph.D. NASA Johnson Space Center" Source : three.usra.edu...

The basic understanding of space e n v i ron ments and radiation transport shielding materials was investigated by N A S A’s Johnson Space Center and Langley Re s e a rch Center in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

If NASA is correct, launching 6 Apollo flights into deep space and landing on the moon for total trip durations of 1.5 weeks was not an insurmountable problem in 1968.

If NASA is correct, they do not need to send live animals into deep space because scientists can do all the science from the ground by using highly advanced complex particle accelerators.

If NASA is correct, they are technologically incapable of taking a clear picture of the Apollo landing sites to save their own reputation from the Apollo-hoaxers and Apollo-skeptics.

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Oh, man!! LOL!

Was trying to find the perfect word to describe this....solipsism? Not quite.....false analogy? Guess, really, it is at its core just a good, old fashioned strawman??

If NASA is correct, they are technologically incapable of taking a clear picture of the Apollo landing sites....

(It's also, really....stupid. Like. Like, something "Jarrah White" (noise) would write..... Doesn't seem to indicate even the most basic application of knowledge of the real world, budget concerns, priorities in assigning mission objectives. Etc).

AND, thought of one other --- ego. AS IN, a false sense of superiority. Inflated sense. (almost brings us back to solipsism, perhaps?).

...."ego"-inflation because, well.....YOU (general "you", the typical "hoax believer") just are NOT that important, in reality...and not worth the expense of a "special" mission just to take pictures of discarded spacecraft components, and other relics of man's Apollo efforts.

ALSO...the photos HAVE BEEN RELEASED! There's even a good one of a SOVIET lander, on the surface of the Moon! Right where it was known to reside....but, really, as mentioned before. NO amount of evidence will work, not when this is a religion to certain personalities.

Like I said, I am not a psychologist......we may need one to offer the proper medical/scientific term here.....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


A later document, Biomedical Results of Apollo (1975), gives the results for Apollo 16 and 17:



Given that Apollo Experience Report was a high-level summary document, I'm not surprised it doesn't include individual results for each dosimeter.

The Apollo 11 Mission Report does give results for each crew member and the VABD (I assume the other mission reports have similar data):

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
DOES NOT COMPUTE!

You'll have to explain why you think it does not compute.

And I really think the LRO images are pretty good. I think it's fascinating you can see the actual paths of disturbed soil from the astronauts.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

First, the answer is obvious, to any rational thinker.

You going to back that up with a source or explain how you got to that answer?

The history is clear, as to the LM, its construction, and mission parameters. It is obvious that each one was new, and unique...and never re-used. This is so evident, it's a shame it has to even be pointed out.

So in the end, the answer is "NO", you dont have sources for your answer.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by nataylor

 

nataylor - thanks for offering your further interpretations of that report.

The report, "Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation" showed :

I still think it is rather odd for flights A7 and A8 to have exactly the same average readings (.16 rads). Is the reader of this report expected to conclude that this is the final word? The report leaves out A16 and A17 so it cannot be the final word.

If I were a NASA writer presenting this document in March 1973 I might have given some paragraphs which could discuss that. Or, failing that, I might have used the same space on the page for an expanded table which showed the ACTUAL readings for the ACTUAL 9 passive radiation dosimeters (3 passive, thermoluminescent devices, placed on the ankle, thigh and chest, for each of the 3 astronauts) on any given flight.

Unfortunately, this table, the "TABLE I. - AVERAGE RADIATION DOSES OF THE FLIGHT CREWS FOR THE APOLLO MISSIONS" is presented as "take it-or leave it" type of information. That is why I continue to remain quite skeptical of this report and this table.

As I showed in a previous post,
the radiation levels for the Apollo program seems to be
in line with LEO missions like Gemini and Mercury. Not ones you would expect from
traveling through the VABs, outside the magnetosphere, and conducting EVAs on a radioactive moon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
How does that help with X-rays?

X-rays aren't the major risk from flares.

How did you come to that conclusion?
Care to provide some sources?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
DOES NOT COMPUTE!

You'll have to explain why you think it does not compute.

And I really think the LRO images are pretty good. I think it's fascinating you can see the actual paths of disturbed soil from the astronauts.

By comparison the LRO photos of Apollo sites were taken from 50km (circular polar mapping orbit). The Selene photos, I don't know the exact km, probably the circular 100km. Chandrayaan-1 also in the 100km range. By comparison the MRO photos of the Spirit rover taken from an altitude of 255 x 320 km science orbit (with periapsis over the south pole and apoapsis over the north pole).. The MRO photos look the most convincing to me. Source for altitude info google & wiki pages

reply to post by FoosM

As I showed in a previous post,
the radiation levels for the Apollo program seems to be
in line with LEO missions like Gemini and Mercury. Not ones you would expect from
traveling through the VABs, outside the magnetosphere, and conducting EVAs on a radioactive moon:

What sort radiation levels would you expect? Cite specific numbers, link to your sources and show your calculations. Oh, wait, you're just being rhetorical. You have no idea what sort of exposures to expect, you just don't want to believe the truth. Did you know that the radiation levels in space vary from point to point and from moment to moment? That's why there's no map of radiation in space, the way ocean currents or magnetic variations on Earth can be mapped, Even the astronauts on the same mission received different doses... it depended on where they were sitting or even which side they favored when sleeping. As for the "radioactive moon," this has been covered on this thread already; the Moon will radiate neutrons when struck by cosmic rays. These are small, transient events. The Moon itself is not "hot."

Originally posted by FoosM
How did you come to that conclusion?
Care to provide some sources?

X-class flares are classified as having a peak x-ray intensity of 1*10^-4 watts per square meter. An X5 flare would have an intensity of 5*10^-4 W/m^2. Typically, the duration of these events is under an hour, but it can be longer.

Let's assume an impossible worst-case scenario. We'll say we have an X5 class flare that maintained an intensity of 5*10^-4 W/m^2 for 3 hours (of course, a real flare would only peak at that intensity, with a rise and drop-off in intensity over this exceptionally long duration). We'll also say that all of that x-ray energy is absorbed by the astronaut (in a real event, only a percentage of the x-rays are absorbed as some will pass right through). And we'll also say that the entire surface area of the person is exposed to the x-rays (in reality, only the surface area facing the sun would be exposed).

energy absorbed = (intensity * surface area * percentage absorbed * duration) / mass

intensity = 5*10^-4 W/m^2 (value of an X5 flare)
surface area = 1.9 m^2 (surface area of average man)
percentage absorbed = 1.00 (100% in decimal form)
duration = 10800 seconds (3 hours in seconds)
mass = 75.8 kg (165 lbs in kg)

energy absorbed = (5*10^-4 W/m^2 * 1.9 m^2 * 1.00 * 10800 seconds) / 75.8 kg
energy absorbed = 0.0135 W-s/kg

Energy in joules is measured in watt-seconds, so:
energy absorbed = 0.0135 J/kg

A rad is equal to 0.01 J/kg, so:
energy absorbed in rads = energy absorbed in J/kg * (1 rad / 0.01 J/kg)
energy absorbed in rads = 0.0135 J/kg * (1 rad / 0.01 J/kg)
energy absorbed in rads = 1.35 rads

A rem is equal to a rad times a weighting factor. The weighting factor when dealing with the whole body is 1. So we get:

Total exposure: 1.35 rem, or 1350 millirem.

While that may seem like a lot, a CT scan of the abdomen can have an exposure of 1000 millirem. So it's really not that big a deal. And of course, I'll reiterate that this is a hypothetical worst case, without any shielding whatsoever, assuming impossibly high figures. The actual dose received by the astronauts would be orders of magnitude smaller.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
By comparison the LRO photos of Apollo sites were taken from 50km (circular polar mapping orbit). The Selene photos, I don't know the exact km, probably the circular 100km. Chandrayaan-1 also in the 100km range. By comparison the MRO photos of the Spirit rover taken from an altitude of 255 x 320 km science orbit (with periapsis over the south pole and apoapsis over the north pole).. The MRO photos look the most convincing to me. Source for altitude info google & wiki pages.

I believe only the Apollo 17 site has been imaged with the LRO in its final mapping orbit: Apollo 17 Site

The other sites that were imaged in July were taken when the LRO was still circularizing its orbit.

And of course the LROC NACs have a resolution of 10 microradians while the HiRISE has 10 times that at 1 microradian. So that's why the HiRISE pictures of Spirit have a resolution of 29.7 cm/pixel at the 297 km distance of the orbiter compared to LRO's 50 cm/pixel resolution at its 50 km distance.

reply to post by FoosM

Sayanara's point- they didnt have enough of an understanding due to the limited type of tests they conducted prior to the rushed launch of Apollo 8. In particular no biological tests to make sure their instruments didnt miss something. I pointed out that CME's were not even calculated into that risk.

Remember,

Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success.

www.astronautix.com

This comes from country whose space program was as advanced as NASA (maybe at the time more-so). A space program with claims of sending biology into space to test the environment, landing a probes that returned photos and samples of the moon. Who probably had an advanced spy network working in the US.
And who stated that radiation and weightlessness was their biggest issue. Yet people here would have you believe that the USSR could not shield their craft with the same materials that NASA used?
Not buying it.

Before you rapidly change the subject, you didn't think I would let this one slip by, did you? Here's what your source actually says:

1968 December 4 - .
Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success. - . Nation: USSR. Related Persons: Johnson, Lyndon. Program: Apollo. Flight: Apollo 8; Soyuz 7K-L1 mission 1. The State Commission investigating Gagarin's crash publishes it report. It found that pilot error put the aircraft into a critical situation. Kamanin judges that the Apollo 8 mission is only being flown to give US President Lyndon Johnson a triumph before he leaves office. He judges the mission has only a 25% chance of success.

Why does he conclude that? Further along the same page:

1968 October 7 - .
Soviets consider Apollo 8 has no chance of success - . Nation: USSR. Related Persons: Tyulin. Program: Apollo; Lunar L1. Flight: Apollo 8. Tyulin is still complaining that the VVS never signed the L1 design specification. But the crews are ready for flight. The flight of Apollo 8 to the moon is announced. Kamanin considers this an adventure with no chance of success. After all, there have been only two Saturn V launches, the last one a partial failure. The US has never flown a crew to escape velocity or lunar distance. The whole thing is a risky, unsafe adventure.

Funny, I don't see anything about radiation here, do you? The concern here seems to be about the reliability of the booster, not radiation. It certainly doesn't say anything about the absolute necessity to send turtlenauts first.

Here's where the "radiation is too dangerous" meme comes in. The Soviet lunar landing effort was in disarray. They had several competing teams working on a variety of different schemes and lacked a powerful enough booster to do the single launch technique used by NASA. When it became obvious that they would be unable even to place a single cosmonaut in lunar orbit in time to beat the Americans, they opted for propaganda:

1968 December 30 - Meeting of the VPK Military-Industrial Commission to discuss how to beat the Americans to the lunar landing [edit for brevity, DJW001

Keldysh proposed that further work on the L1 be abandoned, and Proton boosters instead be used to launch the Ye-8-5 lunar soil return robot spacecraft being developed by Babakin. Babakin had been accelerating this programme since the beginning of 1968 with the support of Keldysh, even though it would only return around 100 g of lunar soil, versus the tens of kilograms the Apollo manned flights would return. However it now offered an interesting possibility - he proposed obtaining lunar soil and returning it to earth before an American manned landing. The government's organs of mass communication would say that the Soviet Union's lunar program only consisted of robot probes, emphasising that his was much safer and that Russia would never risk it's citizen's lives for mere political sensation.

Key Meetings In Soviet Spaceflight

Oh no, the Soviet Union would never endanger its citizens for political purposes! Good job believing the Soviet government's "organs of mass communication," however.

Why is Jarrah even still dicussed here anymore? Especially after two independent third parties known as India and Japan confirmed some of the NASA landing sites?

Why would they confirm the sites if the landings were a lie? How would that benefit them?

And Jarrah doesn't investigate, he manipulates his presentation of the data to fit his conclusions. It's been shown over and over again by people with expertise and knowledge in their respective fields. The Ham radio debacle was pretty funny....

So who am I going to go with? A young kid with anger issues, no scientific training and a youtube account? Or trained scientists who are actually gainfully employed with their respective country's space programs?

Sorry Jarrah, I'm going with the scientists on this one.

reply to post by Facefirst

Why is Jarrah even still dicussed here anymore? Especially after two independent third parties known as India and Japan confirmed some of the NASA landing sites?

Can you post them pics please..
The only ones I've seen are so low resolutions that it's really hard to make out anything..
They would be laughed off ATS if someone posted them as proof of life on Mars for example...

reply to post by backinblack


They are posted in this thread somewhere. Why don't you go find them? I don't see how it would make any difference anyway. Disciples of the church of Jarrah White don't believe in photographic evidence and they can't comprehend actual science, so "proof" is impossible.

But everyone else is supposed to take their word for it.
Somewhere someone is laughing.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

They are posted in this thread somewhere. Why don't you go find them? I don't see how it would make any difference anyway. Disciples of the church of Jarrah White don't believe in photographic evidence and they can't comprehend actual science, so "proof" is impossible.

But everyone else is supposed to take their word for it.
Somewhere someone is laughing.

edit on 21-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)

Well I'm not a disciple of anyone so I don't see your point..
I just asked a simple question aimed at someone else but as usual, you butt in without adding anything to the thread..
Well nothing usefull that I have seen. just unfounded attacks on anyone that remotely questions your belief..
Sounds like YOU are the desciple here, not me..