J. White calculates why Apollo craft could not have survived passage through the VABs

a reply to: FoosM

X class flares did not occur during an Apollo mission, as you know full well.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM

X class flares did not occur during an Apollo mission, as you know full well.

And if they did, what would you say then?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

Please go back through this thread and show where I said "No." to the question about solar flares during Apollo.

Please. Let's see it.

What exactly are you responding to?
"No" to Major solar flares happening during Apollo?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM

X class flares did not occur during an Apollo mission, as you know full well.

And if they did, what would you say then?

If you have evidence they did, provide it.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why does it matter anyway, all you will do is deny that X class solar flare would
not be harmful to astronauts, lol.

a reply to: FoosM

Instead of putting words in my mouth, put some in your own.

Evidence.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM

Instead of putting words in my mouth, put some in your own.

Evidence.

pfff... alright.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

I know Bob's page has a lot of scary numbers on it, but do please try to read it.

Or even just, you know, read the header.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory.

If you want to plot the courses for the other missions then I'm afraid it's calculator time, Foos. Bob only spoon-fed you Apollo 11.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: FoosM

Please go back through this thread and show where I said "No." to the question about solar flares during Apollo.

Please. Let's see it.

What exactly are you responding to?
"No" to Major solar flares happening during Apollo?

You said in your post that everyone in this thread to you "No." when you asked if there was any solar flares during the Apollo missions.

I'm asking you to show where I said that.

Because I never did.

You are again, assuming things, or trying to say that people said things that they did not.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

I know Bob's page has a lot of scary numbers on it, but do please try to read it.

Or even just, you know, read the header.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory.

If you want to plot the courses for the other missions then I'm afraid it's calculator time, Foos. Bob only spoon-fed you Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 does not represent all the missions.
I asked if Bob has any missions that show what NASA has stated regarding
Apollo going through the heart of belts?

a reply to: FoosM

FoosM, every time you bump this thread, you are introducing newbies to the fact that Jarrah's videos belong in [HOAX!] I'm okay with that, are you?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

I know Bob's page has a lot of scary numbers on it, but do please try to read it.

Or even just, you know, read the header.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory.

If you want to plot the courses for the other missions then I'm afraid it's calculator time, Foos. Bob only spoon-fed you Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 does not represent all the missions.
I asked if Bob has any missions that show what NASA has stated regarding
Apollo going through the heart of belts?

Precisely my point! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Bob did the maths for Apollo 11 ONLY and found it didn't encounter harmful levels of radiation. If you want to prove that any other mission did encounter harmful levels of radiation then you need to apply his method to the other five missions.

Off you trot.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

I know Bob's page has a lot of scary numbers on it, but do please try to read it.

Or even just, you know, read the header.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory.

If you want to plot the courses for the other missions then I'm afraid it's calculator time, Foos. Bob only spoon-fed you Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 does not represent all the missions.
I asked if Bob has any missions that show what NASA has stated regarding
Apollo going through the heart of belts?

Precisely my point! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Bob did the maths for Apollo 11 ONLY and found it didn't encounter harmful levels of radiation. If you want to prove that any other mission did encounter harmful levels of radiation then you need to apply his method to the other five missions.

Off you trot.

Rob48

The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are detailed on the link in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did.

Now you say:

Bob did the maths for Apollo 11 ONLY

BUSTED!

Although this thread is in the Hoax bin.
There`s some great discussions by all parties.
It`s just a shame that those of us who are following the discussions aren`t allowed to star any replies.
Is there a reason for this that I don't get ?

a reply to: lambros56

Hoax threads don't get stars or flags.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Yes I know that but if people are allowed to post and discuss in the thread. Why cant we star a post ?

a reply to: lambros56

Because stars are considered a reward, and hoaxing doesn't deserve rewarding. There is no way to separate the hoax posts from other posts so it's turned off for the whole forum.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I get it....thanks !

a reply to: FoosM

way to misquote rob's comment foosm.. are you deliberately doing so??

rob said:
"The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are DETAILED ON THE LINK in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did. "

on braeunig's page you would have found a link to "Apollo by the Numbers - Translunar Injection" which is what rob is referring to about all the apollo missions translunar injection data, you also have the maths to follow step by step for you to do yourself.. i thought it was easy enough to understand...

you didnt bust anything, you only succeeded in failing on your knee jerk reaction on trying to "one up" rob.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

You tell us, Foo. Do some maths instead of getting everyone else to do the donkey work.

Or are you afraid that you will accidentally work out that Apollo was possible, like your Aussie pin-up did?


By the way, the Apollo 12 flares were explained to you four years ago. Have you forgotten which arguments you've already used?

Why should I have to do any math? Either Bob has calculated like NASA that one of the missions went through
the belts or not. Either his work supports NASA's statements or it doesn't, I don't have to check his math for his mistakes. So tell me, does Bob's math correlate with NASA's statements?

I know Bob's page has a lot of scary numbers on it, but do please try to read it.

Or even just, you know, read the header.

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory.

If you want to plot the courses for the other missions then I'm afraid it's calculator time, Foos. Bob only spoon-fed you Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 does not represent all the missions.
I asked if Bob has any missions that show what NASA has stated regarding
Apollo going through the heart of belts?

Precisely my point! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Bob did the maths for Apollo 11 ONLY and found it didn't encounter harmful levels of radiation. If you want to prove that any other mission did encounter harmful levels of radiation then you need to apply his method to the other five missions.

Off you trot.

Rob48

The trajectories of ALL the Apollo missions are detailed on the link in Bob B's trajectory analysis. So you can do the exact same maths he did.


Now you say:


Bob did the maths for Apollo 11 ONLY


BUSTED!

No wonder you can't understand how people landed on the moon if you can't even understand simple English. You're not even trying now. Trajectory analysis. Using the numbers in the link that he provides. Bob did it for Apollo 11, which is why I said you can do the exact same maths he did for the other missions.

I told you back here that you would have to work it out yourself for the other missions using his numbers. And your response shows you didn't understand what I meant.

It's quite obvious to me (and everyone here) that you don't care about whether Apollo is real. You're not interested in learning. You seem to think science is some petty points-scoring competition where if you can catch somebody out then that makes you the "winner". But when you think you've caught someone out, in fact you've just misunderstood them, again and again.

If the numbers are too complex for you, here is the simplest, easiest argument why Apollo could never have been faked:

They had to ensure that next time people visited the moon, everything exactly matched the video and photos of the landings. For all they knew, Russia could have landed a Luna probe next to Apollo 11 within weeks or months. If the Eagle wasn't there, the other equipment wasn't there or even if the tiniest of craters didn't match the photographic record, the whole thing would be blown wide open. Biggest scandal in history. What president would ever agree to such a crazy risk?