Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

1. Want Greening's quote, get it from Jarrah's video that was posted.
This thread is about JW and his videos, but you people dont even watch them. LOL.
And dont give me this, his stuff has been debunked, or you hate his voice, nonsense, your scared to watch them.

2. Tax revolt?

3. Im still waiting for that radiation data from those probes.

1.JW has quoted so many people out of context that it is pointless to take him seriously. Where does he get the quote? Does he say? Please put it in writing so it can be verified.

2. Sorry, I can't blame an Ozzie for not understanding the current political climate in the US any more than you could fault me for knowing nothing about Australia's relocation and assimilation policies. Just click on "Political Madness" and 'ang on ter yer bush 'at. Guv.

3. Why wait? Go down to the library and go through the microfiches of the past fifty years of "Scientific American," "Nature," "The Journal of the Interplanetary Society," "Sky & Telescope," etc. You might learn something.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Jarrah White has already been proven to be an out-and-out liar.

says NASA Believers, i am not going to waste my time urgeing you.



I agree with FoosM

This thread is about JW and his videos, but you people dont even watch them

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

People have and its the same JUNK thats been debunked MANY times before or can YOU just not see that.

I mean how many times have we to prove the no stars, the shadows ,the flag waving, the no crater myths etc etc before you guys admit you got it wrong!


Apollo 17 DAC compared to LRO image (first posted by jra on here)

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Explain how the craters, tracks etc match taken almost 40 yrs apart

These objects cant repeat CANT be seen from earth with any telescope so please explain how they match if they did not land on the moon


You dont argue because you have nothing to argue with

[edit on 15-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008
Oh the idiocy...
.
.
.
.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Oh the idiocy...
.
.
.
.

Typical post from you WITH NOTHING IN IT a bit like yo__ ____
you fill in the blanks

Continuing my essay into radiation...

I'm going to keep 'waffling' for a while, telling the Van Allen story in detail, but trust me, the real Apollo information is on its way... And as some folks here (Hi, FoosM, and PPK55!) are showing an abysmal knowledge of what things were actually happening in the 40's, 50's and 60's, I'm hoping some folks here will be interested in what follows. Personally, I find Van Allen's story fascinating, and it all ties in with Apollo...

==================================

The Van Allen Belts

Part Two

James Van Allen - A Principle Role

James Van Allen, born 1914 in Iowa, was to play a key role in the 'Space Race' of the 50's and 60's, that culminated in the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

Few people realise the depth of involvement of Van Allen in the space program, thinking that his role was limited to the discovery of the radiation belts around the earth, now named in his honour. The truth goes quite a bit deeper..

He began school at just 4 - his father was a stickler for knowledge. Of small stature and not particularly athletic, James focused his skills on learning. As he progressed through school and onto college, his marks were exemplary - in 1931 he graduated from High School as valedictorian. Early in his days at college he came to the attention of a professor who specialised in astro- and nuclear-physics and he took Van Allen under his wing - Van Allen was already measuring cosmic rays by 1933! In 1935, he received his Bachelor of Science degree, summa cum laude.

So at a very early age, Van Allen had developed an intense interest and comprehensive knowledge in cosmic radiation, nuclear physics, and astronomy. He went on to do his post-graduate work in nuclear physics at the University of Iowa, and then got a job in 1939 at the Carnegie Institution for Science working in radio communications, photoelectrics and geo-magnetic fields and cosmic radiation. During the war years, he also worked on technical weaponry, including remote radio control, proximity fuses, and other projectile and rocketry related technical equipment. One of his early achievements was a set of electrics/switches that could withstand the stresses of being fired from a high velocity cannon in the nose-cone of a shell. This was in 1940...

When he left the Navy in 1946, Van Allen worked at the renowned Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at John Hopkins U. He was the team leader of a group dedicated to high altitude experiments, often using captured V-2 rocketry (the US had secured about 90 V-2's during and after the war) as a platform. Becoming an expert on rocketry and the instrumentation, equipment and technical support necessary to support them, he was also the instigator of the 'WAC Corporal' and 'Bumblebee' missiles - they were initially designed for his high altitude testing needs.

Van Allen was by now the key player in high altitude research and an expert in rocketry development. He was elected chairman of the "Upper Atmosphere Rocket Research Panel" later to become the "Rocket and Satellite Research Panel" in 1947/8. In 1949, seeking new ways to get his instruments higher into the atmosphere, Van Allen, Siegfried (Fred) Singer and two naval commanders collaborated on the design of a 'rockoon' system. The idea was to use a balloon to take a rocket well above the lower atmosphere (5-20km), from where the rocket was fired to get to far higher levels.

In 1950, Van Allen was honoured with a Guggenheim Memorial Foundation research fellowship at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and then in 1951, he became the Head of Physics at the University of Iowa. In 1952, he was ready to take the rockoon concept to its limits, but there was a snag in the first major tests. The rockoons could not be tested near any populated areas as the remnants might hit someone... but Van Allen, by now a bit of a celebrity and a very experienced negotiator, managed to talk the US Coast Guard into letting him test the concept on an icebreaker (Eastwind) bound for Greenland.

But as Time magazine reported:

The first balloon rose properly to 70,000 ft., but the rocket hanging under it did not fire. The second Rockoon behaved in the same maddening way. On the theory that extreme cold at high altitude might have stopped the clockwork supposed to ignite the rockets, Van Allen heated cans of orange juice, snuggled them into the third Rockoon’s gondola, and wrapped the whole business in insulation. The rocket fired.

In 1952, the existence of cosmic radiation (high energy particle radiation) was very well known (largely because of Van Allen himself), and the earth's magnetic fields were also quite well understood, but he was about to discover something new when the two were put together...

In 1953, some of Van Allen's students firing rockoons near Newfoundland detected the first hints of radiation belts around the earth. They excitedly contacted Van Allen to report that the radiation intensity seemed to be increasing markedly - and somewhat unexpectedly - at higher altitudes in that location.

Obviously, concluded Van Allen, "there was something wild and woolly going on." The aurora borealis is most intense at latitudes north of Newfoundland. It was believed to be caused by charged particles of some sort raining down from space and concentrated around the Magnetic North Pole by the earth's magnetic field. Though Van Allen could not guess it then, the "cosmic rays" detected by his Rockoons were directly related to the northern lights, and were really a fringe of the worldwide radiation belt that he was to [re]'discover' five years later.

That was in 1953. For the next few years, he concentrated his efforts toward improving rocket and satellite technology, with a view to taking his research much further, and into space.

But the US was beaten into orbit by Russia, who managed to get Sputniks I and II into space before the US finally got Explorer 1 into orbit. Not many people realise that Explorer 1 was Van Allen's 'baby'... More about that later.

Sputnik 2 was the first spacecraft to detect the outer radiation belt, but that fact was not known at the time! In a ridiculous twist of fate, the Soviets were unable to receive the data transmitted back from the craft's geiger counters. But down here in Australia, a professor by the name of Harry Messel was able to detect and record the (encoded) data. The Soviets refused to provide the code.. and so the Australians responded in similar fashion and refused to give them the data - that was the end of that...! Little Sputnik II knew, but no human did...

In the meantime, Explorer I hit the sky, carrying James Van Allen's instruments...

But the data they got back was puzzling - at the higher altitudes where they expected to read higher levels of radiation, they got.. nothing.

What was happening?

==================================
... (to be continued..)

References include:

Foerstner, Abigail - "James van Allen: The first eight billion miles", 2007

George Ludwig - "J. A. Van Allen from High School to the Beginning of the Space Era", 2004 (PDF)


(Minor speling erurs and grama curekshuns)


[edit on 15-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo

 

and it doesn't prove there are either does it?

If we already HAVE a way to measure .. since the EARLY 1600ad, then why stick the 'mirrors' on the moon. and .. hmmm.. since when did we have the tech in the 60's to 'shoot' a laser and pricisly hit a mirro that is what.. all of 2ft square; since the computing power in a calualator now days is more powerfull than was in the Apollo LMAO .. yeeeeeah ..

If it doesn't prove they didn't, why did you bother to post it? And then act like it did? As for hitting a mirror on the Moon with a laser: you realize that a laser beam isn't perfectly parallel, don't you? By the time the beam hits the Moon it's over a kilometer wide... no need for pinpoint accuracy, really. Laser measurements have allowed astronomers to calculate that the Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Can you calculate that with a trig table? Since you clearly know all the answers, there would be little point in reading this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

wow.. so now I know all the answers.. hmmmk .. if you say so,.. so .. can you plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's.. cuz we BARELY broke ground on computers then !!!

Originally posted by Komodo


wow.. so now I know all the answers.. hmmmk .. if you say so,.. so .. can you plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's.. cuz we BARELY broke ground on computers then !!!

The laser was invented in 1960 and was first used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon in 1962.

From Wiki:

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[1] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, while two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment.

Why do you insist on showing your ignorance of such an easily researched topic?

reply to post by Tomblvd



Well...@for dragnet...as Tom mentioned...but, perhaps someone needs a picture?? (And, dragnet, what is the connection in your question with computing power, and lasers??):

Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.

From this ARTICLE.

However, funding difficulties have cropped up, of late:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Here, you can read about the McDonald Observatory, outside Austin, TX:

www.as.utexas.edu...

Any questions?? Any more silly s?

reply to post by Komodo

wow.. so now I know all the answers.. hmmmk .. if you say so,.. so .. can you plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's.. cuz we BARELY broke ground on computers then !!!

If it wasn't for computer research and design in the 1960's you wouldn't be on the internet today.

Computers today are direct descendants of Apollo era technologies.

reply to post by wmd_2008
Haha how do you get stars for that?
I'm jealous...

Komodo, you really need to have a long hard think about whether you are helping your cause... If I was an Apollo denier, I would have disowned you well before this latest gaffe, but really, this one is just completely EMBARRASSING.

Originally posted by Komodo
..since when did we have the tech in the 60's to 'shoot' a laser..

As has been pointed out, both the US:

www.k3pgp.org...

and Russia

adsabs.harvard.edu...

poet.mit.edu... (check p26)

.. were doing it.

The MASER was developed in 1953, and the laser was designed and patented in 1958, and then finally a working device was first tested in 1960. Application of the laser to a huge range of tasks, inclduing lunar ranging, was incredibly rapid...


Repeating the ignorance with a good dose of smarm..:

... plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's..

.. doesn't really help - it just reinforces that you are completely out of your depth. And this makes your smilie faces look just a little silly, don't you think?

By the way, apologising and admitting you are wrong is very good for the soul... PPK had to do it a page back (on one point only, but it's a start...) - now it's your turn.

In a previous thread I asked who could take this photo on the moon if there were only 2 astronauts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, amazing news ... I've just received a high resolution 14mb .tiff file of the image which makes it a bit clearer.

So now I ask again: where is the PLSS (life preserving backpack) on this astronaut ??? Remember, you do need one to survive on the moon.

Closeup views in reverse, and full source posted below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74cab6317ddf.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4521d866d5f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/459dccde9bd2.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66b1641ab660.jpg[/atsimg]

source: can anyone tell me how I can host a 14 mb .tiff file ? photobucket and ATS media don't like it.

Here's rapid share .. but it says only 10 people can download it before i have to pay

rapidshare.com...



[edit on 15-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Why re-hash a topic that has already been thoroughly explained??

Sorry, but it smacks of desperation...higher-quality resolution of forty-year-old photos don't make them any better than before.

Back to the "desperation" angle (and it IS about 'angles')...this looks like a clumsy attempt to shift a discussion, and (hopefully) snare a few new readers who may happen into this thread...to continue sowing the "seeds" of "doubt".

However, most readers are way too smart to fall for that....BUT, if the best so-called "proof" of 'Apollo hoax' is a heavily pixellated reflection of the Astronaut in a convex surface, taking a picture of his colleague...??

IF THAT IS THE BEST 'proof'....well....'nuf said.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Komodo

 

wow.. so now I know all the answers.. hmmmk .. if you say so,.. so .. can you plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's.. cuz we BARELY broke ground on computers then !!!

If it wasn't for computer research and design in the 1960's you wouldn't be on the internet today.

Computers today are direct descendants of Apollo era technologies.

yea.. you got a source for that ?

2nd line

Hey ppk, thanks for reminding me - I haven't finished with that one!!! At last, you found one where I really did say I'd be back, and then forgot about it!

Congratulations. I'm happy to give you credit where it is due.


But.. that said, is this related to a Jarrah White video?

And you do realise that there is basically ZILCH difference between that TIF and the high-res, low-compression jpeg that was posted innumerable times?

Lastly, when you post a MAGNIFIED view, you should:

1. DECLARE that. Your topmost image is interpolated, and therefore contains FALSE detail.

2. Refer to the interpolation method used, so we can consider precisely how that would affect the FALSE detail. (and I'll then show you some OTHER interpolations, and how/why they differ..)

You DO understand interpolation and its dangers, right?

Anyway, to give credit where due again, that is an interesting image and an 'odd-looking' effect. But I do have the answers, most of which have been elucidated, if not fully demonstrated, in that thread.

One thing at a time though, and frankly I'd prefer to deal with that one back on the thread...

Moderator comment?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why re-hash a topic that has already been thoroughly explained?

?
Sorry, but it smacks of desperation

Do you know how hard it was to get this image in high res ?

reply to post by Komodo


I sure do, this thread is all about the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) with tons of sources about computer technology in the 1960's and how it lead to the computer you use today.
A work of Art: Apollo Era Technology Used Everyday

Its a great read!

He is DEFINITELY not wearing a backpack in that picture. In court that could be considered evidence i believe.

reply to post by A.Poster

He is DEFINITELY not wearing a backpack in that picture. In court that could be considered evidence i believe.

Wrong on both counts. What is that fuzzy mass on the astronaut's butt? Can you make out what it is? But it is there, isn't it? Or does the resolution of this scan make it difficult to interpret? Yes, it's the base of his "backpack," lost in the noise of digital compression, just as the rest of it blends in with the noise of grayscale. Any photo expert could rip this "evidence" to shreds in court. A smart lawyer would never introduce it.

Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by A.Poster
He is DEFINITELY not wearing a backpack in that picture. In court that could be considered evidence i believe.

I actually think A.Poster could be on to something here... If the above image was shown to a jury, they would agree conclusively the astronaut was missing his life preserving backpack.