Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

For the record, I have e-mailed Geoffrey Landis for an explanation of his use of the word "omni-directional" in the piece FoosM quoted. Particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere are isotropic due to their spiraling around the lines of magnetic flux. I'm not sure if the particles in a CME would necessarily behave the same way. If they do, I will stand corrected.

Originally posted by DJW001
For the record, I have e-mailed Geoffrey Landis for an explanation of his use of the word "omni-directional" in the piece FoosM quoted. Particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere are isotropic due to their spiraling around the lines of magnetic flux. I'm not sure if the particles in a CME would necessarily behave the same way. If they do, I will stand corrected.

Instead of doing the smart thing like you did and going directly to the source, I just put a post up on ApolloHoax. Jay Windley responds:

In solar physics we use the terms "isotropic" and "anisotropic" to describe the directional component of any radiation effect. The quiescent proton flux is isotropic (i.e., omnidirectional) but of too low an intensity to matter. Proton flux from an energetic solar event is ruthlessly anisotropic (i.e., directional).

Which in a sense answers the question I asked of Foos (and he, of course, ignored) as to the energies of the flux of the protons in question.

Essentially it is true there are protons constantly moving in all directions during a CME, but it is only the "ruthlessly anisotropic" ones that have the highest energies, and hence, present the most danger. Which is why NASA did have the contingency plan to turn the rear of the CM/LM stack toward the sun in the event of a CME.

reply to post by Tomblvd


Good work, both of you ( and quick, too! ).

Since FoosM doesn't seem to grasp the implications of what he reads, nor understand it fully...regarding the radiation, and claims of its being "everywhere" and thus dangerous from a CME event...I thought of a more prosaic example, that might give a mental image for the more challenged folk?

Going to the dentist, and getting X-rays...or in the hospital. I've only ever seen the technician/dental assistant duck behind the simple shielding in the wall....NOT worrying about the open door just to the side. NOR the big plate glass windw that might be installed in the wall, either.

Extremely energetic particles emitted iin bursts tend to follow a straight line, correct? Unless acted upon by external forces, such as in the case of the Earth's magnetic field. Still their paths in those cases are predictable.

X-rays are an example....they don't go around corners to zap the technician. Not through a window, and not through the open doorway...

reply to post by Tomblvd


I just thought it might make a dent on FoosM if I had his own source contradict him in person. Probably not, though.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

I just thought it might make a dent on FoosM if I had his own source contradict him in person. Probably not, though.

LOL, you wont contradict me, you will have him contradict himself.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
I called it, a mega-dump from Foos trying to completely change the subject.

Answer the question Foos, the source you previously quoted concerning proton flux states radiation was not a severe problem for Apollo and the missions were not in jeopardy.

Do you withdraw that source or stand by it?

Im not changing the subject, TOM, your not the only one on this message board, and frankly, your not the most interesting to debate with. I think I've mega-dumped on your head enough as it is.

Two posts from Foos that say aboslutely nothing....

Well, add those to the pile.

So, the question stands, do you still stand by your source, or don't you?

Still waiting for that proton flux answer too.

reply to post by Tomblvd


I think you have him pinned down, Tom. I'm interested to see how he squirms out of answering. I have yet to see Foo concede anything, so expect more special pleading or to be ignored.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

I think you have him pinned down, Tom. I'm interested to see how he squirms out of answering. I have yet to see Foo concede anything, so expect more special pleading or to be ignored.

He will do what he always does, change the subject. You won't hear from the esteemed Geoffrey A. Landis again.

It's funny how he talks about our sources contradicting themselves when he posts a quote from a paper, in a post arguing that we couldn't have gone to the moon because of the radiation, that says specifically that we did go to the moon and specifically that radiation was not a problem.

How he does that and manages to keep posting without being embarassed is beyond me.

reply to post by FoosM


Keep up the Good Work Foos.

You are winning this debate and you have your opponents resorting to insults in lieu of making actual rebuttals. It is only a matter of time before they admit defeat and leave the thread. They are even referring to you in the third person (as though you cannot see their posts. or some such.)



[edit on 14-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Link please! I searched for the thread where Foos is 'winning the debate' and I can't find it, I don't have time to keep hunting to be honest but I'd like to read it out of sheer curiosity.
Is it on ATS somewhere or is it on another forum?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Re: Van Allen Belts.
The webpage is not correct, exactly. The Apollo missions did enter the outer belt, which is the more intense region. However they did not enter the most intense part of the outer belt. That region lies above the equatorial region. Because the Apollo spacecraft were in high inclination orbits, they traversed the fringe of the outer belt where the radiation is not as intense. The data on the TLI orbit is readily available.

----
Then provide it.
And make sure you can prove that they stayed on that trajectory seeing how they TLI'd from the opposite side of Earth.

Re: appropriate measures
If there had been a threat of an intense flare (intense sunspot activity, multiple low level flares), the astronauts would not have entered the LM. The high energy particles which follow a solar flare take time to reach the Moon, they do not travel at the speed of light. Had an intense flare happened there would have been hours to respond.

Source?

If the astronauts had been in the LM but not on the surface they would have returned to the CM. If the astronauts were on the surface they would have returned to the CM as soon as they could have. In the CM they were protected, not completely, but enough to minimize the effects of even a very intense flare.

How long would that take?

Why don't you explain where JW came up with those numbers. Calculating estimated radiation doses is not a trivial matter.

Why dont you explain it, if you dont believe his numbers.

Re: Solar cycles.
You are talking about sunspot numbers. Sunspot numbers are not an indication of the intensity of solar flares produced. We are not much more able to predict solar flares now than were were 40 years ago. But even at solar maximum, intense solar flares are not a common occurrence (remember, .3%?). It was a calculated risk. An acceptable risk. Space exploration is risky.

I think you have misinterpreted that information that I provided.

Re: Cumulative effects.
There were no flares. The CM offered very good protection. The actual radiation doses received were low.

Re: Glass.
There is no such thing as "ionized radiation" but if you are talking about high energy radiation like xrays and gamma rays, fused silica glass is opaque to those wavelengths. As you said, it does transmit some ultraviolet but shorter wavelengths are absorbed. And you are now ignoring the inner panes. I would have no problem standing behind more than 1 inch of glass in an xray room.

So your saying glass can substitute for lead shielding during X-ray examinations? Can you show this as a fact? Because I admire you would use yourself as a guinea pig for the sake or science, but I doubt we could see this happen sometime soon.

Re; The windows "issue".
That quote is nonsense. The windows provide just as much, if not more radiation shielding that the other parts of the spacecraft. "Instant death". Right. Why do you refer to sources about long term exposure? It doesn't help your stance.

You have provided no evidence that those windows were capable of protecting those astronauts. Its an assumption that you are making.
I've demonstrated that the glass was made from material not used for radiation shielding. The only reason for the choice was because how durable the glass was to shock and heat.

Originally posted by FoosM

----
Then provide it.
And make sure you can prove that they stayed on that trajectory seeing how they TLI'd from the opposite side of Earth.

Here is a link to every piece of information concerning Apollo 11's launch trajectory, with real time tracking information. Along with diagrams of the VA Belts and the trajectory with them.

www.braeunig.us...

It is extraordinarily comprhensive, and very long. Take your time and read all of it.

To start you off, here are diagrams of the TLI in relation to the VA Belts. You should recognize them, I posted them on this thread before.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a692a2471fd0.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]

I did't bother to resize the pictures becuase the full size one's are at the link.

As you can see, as we said, the path of the Apollo spacecraft skirted both belts.

Originally posted by FoosM

You have provided no evidence that those windows were capable of protecting those astronauts. Its an assumption that you are making.
I've demonstrated that the glass was made from material not used for radiation shielding. The only reason for the choice was because how durable the glass was to shock and heat.

What do x-rays have to do with the shielding needed in Apollo spacecraft?

reply to post by FoosM


??

What?

... seeing how they TLI'd from the opposite side of Earth.

What does "the opposite side of Earth" actually mean, anyways??

No, no need to answer...your lack of comprehension shines through dramatically enough, already.

BTW...figured out, yet, what direction one could expect solar flares, and any bursts of radiation associated with such events would come from?

Have you thought about being in the "coast" phase, from Earth to Moon, or vice-versa, and what direction these CME bursts might be from? AND, knowing that, what sort of counter measures could have been employed, to provide adequate protection, in such event?

Are you aware that an spacecraft's attitude can be altered, as needed, irrespective of its direction of motion, when in space? Even, yes, when on orbit about a planetary body?

AND...do you still think that those pesky particles emitted during a CME would make sharply angled turns, JUST to try to enter through a window or two on the spacecraft??

Because...it sure seems as if that's what you're suggesting would happen....

Originally posted by WWu777


Hi all,
You won't believe this. This is no joke. I'm speechless as I write this.

The whole Moon Hoax Debate, which I thought had died off long ago, has been revived by this young genius from Australia who has been kicking butt against astronomers appointed by NASA to debate the moon hoaxers such as Phil Plait of www.badastronomy.com, Jay Windley, the Mythbusters program, and other "NASA Propagandists" as he calls them.

This kid is something you have to see to believe. He calls himself Jarrah White. He looks only about 25 or so, yet he's the best debater I've ever seen. His arguments and reasoning are so thorough and scholarly. Everything he says is sourced and documented. He has documents on everything, even stuff from the 60's. He even performs scientific experiments, when he can, to back up and illustrate his argument, showing and explaining each step to the viewer. Therefore, he doesn't just make arguments, he SHOWS you the scientific facts and results through experiments right in front of you, either by him, or by others.

In doing so, he has unmasked critical errors and omissions of Phil Plait, the Mythbusters, and others. It's absolutely brilliant. I'm astounded by it. I've never seen a young guy who was so thorough and logical. His videos all look very professionally produced and his presentation is very professional as well. It's something you have to see to believe.

Here is his YouTube Channel. He has like over 300 videos now. His video series is called MoonFaker.

www.youtube.com...

Check out this 3 part segment where he shows an untouched flag waving on the moon, where there is no air. Then he cites the Lunar Journal's 6 speculative explanations for the moving flag and debunks them all, with simple experiments, precendents and deduction.

MoonFaker: The Flags are Alive
www.youtube.com...

And here he shows you EXACTLY WHY the Lunar Module on the moon must have had a blast crater under it, contrary to NASA defenders' explanations to the contrary. All the math, science and documented experiments by NASA and other organizations is shown to you in full detail, in a five part video series.

MoonFaker - No Crater
www.youtube.com...

In this one, he gets to the bottom of the debate about whether the "C" rock in a moon photo right next to the "C" on the ground, is an original or the same photo with the "C" airbrushed out is, and whether it is a piece of hair or a marker. By simple research and deduction, Jarrah White shows that the NASA defenders are wrong and supporting an obvious cover up.

MoonFaker - Rocks and Crocks
www.youtube.com...

In this funny one, he explains how in theory the astronauts should have been able to jump 14 feet in the air, according to NASA's calculations, yet the Apollo astronauts usually only jumped 20 inches off the ground, and why NASA's defenders' explanations for this do not fit.

MoonFaker - One Giant Leap
www.youtube.com...

Here's another thoroughly researched one. Here he takes some famous photographs with lighting oddities and performs tedious experiments to see if NASA defenders' explanations hold up. In it, he even exposes deceit and factual errors by the Mythbusters program.

MoonFaker - Reflect on this
www.youtube.com...

There's more at his channel, including many videos dissecting and scrutinizing the recent LRO aerial photos of the moon, which seem to be far less accurate than even Google Earth is.

LRO Series
www.youtube.com...

The only folks who won't like these videos are the establishment defenders who mistakenly believe that "authority = truth" and worship "status quo and orthodoxy" as their Lord and God, and believe that "critical thinking" can never be used against establishment or orthodoxy, only against those who would challenge it.

Remember folks, a true skeptic is willing to challenge authority and orthodoxy, and apply his critical thinking and skepticism in that direction. Those who absolutely cannot are not skeptics, they are establishment defenders. Randi, Shermer, CSICOP, the BadAstronomy.com folks, the Mythbusters, Penn and Teller, and the skeptics on my SCEPCOP forum are establishment defenders, not true skeptics.

These establishment defenders were taught in high school that "authority = truth" and therefore is never to be questioned, and that doing and believing what you're told leads to reward, while the opposite leads to punishment. They are unable to free themselves of their programming and conditioning, so in that sense, they are not "freethinkers".

wow there is alot of good stuff here

interesting how when he posted his videos and tried to debunk the moon mission he was claimed as having copyrighted material and his videos taken down!

i think they will do anything to cover it up

has he found a way around their trumped up 'copyrighted' material claim yet?

reply to post by indigothefish


You're joking, right?

I mean...an ATS member since 2006? And you fell for this...say it ain't so!

Would like to know if you, a long-time member here, merely read the OP, and none of the responses, and then "quoted" the full OP again, in a response post?? Thanks...

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

Keep up the Good Work Foos.

You are winning this debate and you have your opponents resorting to insults in lieu of making actual rebuttals. It is only a matter of time before they admit defeat and leave the thread. They are even referring to you in the third person (as though you cannot see their posts. or some such.)

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

and some think Im Jarrah White



But I guess that's alright, cause I think
some of them are actually the same person using
multiple accounts.



I appreciate your support, but I doubt I will ever convince
any of them unless I claim Im one of the Apollo astronauts and I didnt land on the moon. But even then, they would go through my records and find something to discredit my name, or say that I have some kind of old folks mental disease, or maybe that hoaxers are blackmailing me...

But I tell you something. If somebody would ask me, why debate about Apollo, why not 9/11, Kennedy Assassination, or any of the other classic conspiracies. I would say, with 9/11, Kennedy, etc. the government can always claim it was done by someone else. It was due to islamic radicals, to Cubans, to Communists, Spectre or whatever the popular evil organization of the day is. But Apollo is 100% American. 100% created and run by the US Government, paid for by the American people.

If the American public discover that Apollo was faked, then maybe we will have a situation where the American public wake up from their manufactured dreams and actively take back their country en masse. And they can return to the principles of their founding fathers. Small government, privacy, stay out of foreign wars, have congress coin the money and get out of debt, break up the monopolies and declassify corporations as a person, and break up the corrupt two party system.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

----
Then provide it.
And make sure you can prove that they stayed on that trajectory seeing how they TLI'd from the opposite side of Earth.

Here is a link to every piece of information concerning Apollo 11's launch trajectory, with real time tracking information. Along with diagrams of the VA Belts and the trajectory with them.

www.braeunig.us...

It is extraordinarily comprhensive, and very long. Take your time and read all of it.

To start you off, here are diagrams of the TLI in relation to the VA Belts. You should recognize them, I posted them on this thread before.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a692a2471fd0.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]

I did't bother to resize the pictures becuase the full size one's are at the link.

As you can see, as we said, the path of the Apollo spacecraft skirted both belts.

*Yawn*

Yes Im really tired, long day at work.

Maybe you were gone when I covered this.
Those pictures are misleading.
They suggest that the craft simply shot out straight to the moon thereby skirting parts of the belt.
When infact the TLI happened on the opposite side of the planet

(that is, weedwacker, the part of the planet not facing the moon)

and elongated its orbit.



This makes a world of difference.
So put in those VABs in that picture,
and then we can talk on what was skipped or not skipped.

Originally posted by indigothefish

wow there is alot of good stuff here

interesting how when he posted his videos and tried to debunk the moon mission he was claimed as having copyrighted material and his videos taken down!

i think they will do anything to cover it up

has he found a way around their trumped up 'copyrighted' material claim yet?

Considering Jarrah White has posted over 300 (400?) videos on Youtube and other sites, I'd say he's found a way around any copyright issues.

You might want to find some of that "good stuff" and post it. It has pretty much all been debunked. Many of us will be happy to walk you through Jarrah's issues with the truth.

All the best.