Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Thats all when and fine, but If the roles were reversed and I presented you this experiment, you would say
what does that have to do with the radiation found in interstellar space? And where are the tests that showed NASA knew their glass was capable of blocking such radiation? We all know it was great as a heat shield, but radiation? Was it thick enough, was it the correct composition?

That goes for the LM and the helmets of the Astronauts themselves.

Yes, it's all about you, not facts. Your question about the windows has been answered in principle. If you bring it up again, please provide calculations to prove that the specific alumino-silicate glass was insufficient to block the radiation levels experienced on the actual missions... otherwise you will be considered petulant and childish and be ignored. Why do you keep forgetting that you are the one trying to prove something here? If you have facts to support your case, why don't you bring them to the table?

Well DJ,
I presented my case pretty well.
I showed the type of glass used was good for heat but not necessarily radiation.
For that, you needed an exta element such as lead, or (borate?) in the glass.
The glass used by Apollo was not shielded in that manner.

I also could not find any evidence in NASA documentation to show how their
glass could shield against radiation.

So why didnt you use your post to show that the glass was capable of blocking the various radiation in space?
Or should I interpret your post to mean, you dont have an answer, so attack the person for presenting a possible contradiction?

I dont believe its possible for man to go to the moon and come back safely.
A foreign country, foreign to me, and its organization has made a claim that back in the 1960's this was done.
Normally, when somebody claims the impossible, there is a slew of people who peer review and look deeply into the the facts of the case.

This was clearly not done by any other country or individuals.
Why is that, well its because the US claimed it.
The New Super Power on the block with warships and military bases entrenched around the world over.
A Super Power with great economic control over other countries.
In other words, the US has enough muscle to keep people's mouth shut.
Everyone knows this, this is not secret.
Just like how they make people keep their mouth shut about many illegal adventures that are taking place
at this moment. Secret CIA prisons in Europe? Really? And the leaders were unaware? Right...

So it is up to NASA and the USA to prove they actually went to the moon and that their experiment can be repeated, especially by third parties.
Any country, or team of countries, should be able to take the same 1960 tech and go to the moon today.
Like if the EU decided to go.

Who has certified the claim that the US has landed men on the moon?
There is a certification process for reaching the south and north pole.

So when I go through NASA documents and they don't explain how their glass could block radiation.
Then I say shenanigans. And its up to NASA prove their case, or their defenders can try to come up
with a good explanation.

Otherwise, whats the point of debating in a moon hoax thread?

Originally posted by CHRLZ
It was a dark and stormy night, as FoosM vouched safe:

I told you that there is a possibility that the one and only returned hasselblad went to that museum.
Anyway, I think I have definitive proof they have or had the Apollo 14 Hasselblad.
I await a certain poster's apology.

Is the 'certain poster' me, FoosM? Why do you play games - why not come out and say what you mean? And why did you not post this earlier, and why did you not answer the question about relevance to this thread?

This, if true, certainly deserves a thread of its own. The story of how it got there, and why sources from NASA thru wiki thru Hasselblad are seemingly unaware of it may well be interesting.

FTR, and as I mentioned earlier, I *really* hope this is true. I'll be going to kansas asap!!

Well first of all thank you for the apology.
And if you think about it,
there was no reason to put yourself in a situation where that would have to happen.

Regarding your questions:
1. Yes that poster was you, but to tell you the truth, in my haste, I forgot which person to address the post to.
So I didnt mean anything bad by it...
2. No, I cant take credit for finding the Museum, but probably can take credit for initiating the hunt for it.
3. I didnt have the photo for evidence, actually, I had no evidence that the Museum had THAT specific camera, all I had was heresy, and evidence that they had Hasselblads in general and signed mags. So I just wanted to get the facts straight about it myself and so I looked into it further and presto, found that picture on the web.

Why the camera issue?
Its really not an issue for me, its more of, I like to get the facts straight.
However... for some of you Apollo defenders it might be an interesting point when debating J.W. and David Groves(sp?). I sorted of tried to allude to this earlier.

Well if you go to Kansas, you can confirm 100% its existence and maybe you might discover the back story to this camera. I actually had no idea they were gold plated inside.... maybe thats why the robbery?

Originally posted by DJW001
What items missing from a museum has to do with anything, I don't know.

I think missing apollo items from a museum has a lot to do with this whole thread.
It's yet another huge bunch of apollo items that have gone missing or have been lost, or have mysteriously disappeared.

So far we have

1. The 700 boxes of video tapes and telemetry that have vanished, including the only tapes with the high quality slow scan TV images. These today would provide the best quality TV images ever seen. Gone.



2. The moon rock given to the dutch prime minister by the Apollo 11 astronauts that turned out to be petrified wood.

3. The missing moon rocks all over the globe.

4. and now a whole host of items have vanished from a museum, including a 70mm Apollo Hasselblad camera.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
underalms.typepad.com...

Is anyone seeing a pattern here in regard to Apollo 'evidence' ?

Offtopic...

Originally posted by FoosM
Well first of all thank you for the apology.

My pleasure.

And if you think about it, there was no reason to put yourself in a situation where that would have to happen.

I don't quite follow - do you think apologising was a problem for me? It isn't. Even though I don't have to do it often... And the 'situation' was one where NASA, Hasselblad, and various other sources all suggested that the camera was not returned. So I think I was reasonably justified in thinking they knew what they were talking about. They were incorrect, it appears and I too was therefore incorrect by taking their viewpoint. When such things happen, ie new information comes to hand, then the hypothesis needs to be adjusted. I have done so.

From my point of view, I'm very glad I 'put myself in that situation', as otherwise I wouldn't have learnt something new. I'm delighted to discover that camera came back, but now it remains to be 100% verified, whether it is still there, or was stolen.. In which case it may be a conspiracy..!

Regarding your questions:
1. Yes that poster was you, but to tell you the truth, in my haste, I forgot which person to address the post to.
So I didnt mean anything bad by it...

I'll accept that, but you do frequently withhold information and links, seemingly to avoid them being scrutinised. Please DON'T.

2. No, I cant take credit for finding the Museum, but probably can take credit for initiating the hunt for it.

Whoah, nellie. I've already found references back to 2005. Can you cite your earliest 'initiation of the hunt'?

3. I didnt have the photo for evidence, actually, I had no evidence that the Museum had THAT specific camera, all I had was heresy

I think you mean hearsay, but that was quite funny, sorry...

and evidence that they had Hasselblads in general and signed mags.

Hasselblads were used extensively in many Nasa missions. We are talking about the ones (12) that went to the lunar surface in Apollo. It now appears 11 of them are still on the Moon, and one may be back here. Somewhere. But Nasa Hasselblads generally are a dime a dozen..

So I just wanted to get the facts straight about it myself and so I looked into it further and presto, found that picture on the web.

A sign of actual research. Bravo! Keep it up.

Why the camera issue? Its really not an issue for me, its more of, I like to get the facts straight.

Fair enough. But you brought it up in the midst of other discussions, and again, you have a record of changing the subject. Please DON'T. Start a new thread, for heaven's sake. I'll guarantee it will be a popular one - why don't you do that? I am probably going to do so on BAUT - are you a member there? If so, I will defer to you starting it, as you brought it up here first. I'm a true gentleman...

However... for some of you Apollo defenders it might be an interesting point when debating J.W. and David Groves(sp?). I sorted of tried to allude to this earlier.

I'm not quite sure how, but whatever..

Well if you go to Kansas, you can confirm 100% its existence and maybe you might discover the back story to this camera. I actually had no idea they were gold plated inside.... maybe thats why the robbery?

As I'm in Oz, 'asap' may take a while. Anyone here from Kansas??? Gold plating is actually not that expensive - It's the camera's history that makes it valuable. I do hope it wasn't one of those stolen
.

Foosm, I have (and will continue..) disagreed with you may times, and been unimpressed with your tactics. But I will happily say that I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Having said that, I am now heartily sick of this thread...

Originally posted by FoosM
And where are the tests that showed NASA knew their glass was capable of blocking such radiation? We all know it was great as a heat shield, but radiation? Was it thick enough, was it the correct composition?

*Yawn*, as you're too lazy and incompetent as usual to find information for yourself Foos, here you go....

Combined space environment effects on typical spacecraft window materials final report, jun. 1964 - jun. 1965

PPK, please refrain from misleading this forum.

Originally posted by ppk55
2. The moon rock given to the dutch prime minister by the Apollo 11 astronauts that turned out to be petrified wood.

Apart from all the other holes in that story, it was ABSOLUTELY NOT 'given .. by the Apollo 11 astronauts'.

WITHDRAW THAT and apologise.

reply to post by ppk55

1. The 700 boxes of video tapes and telemetry that have vanished, including the only tapes with the high quality slow scan TV images. These today would provide the best quality TV images ever seen. Gone.

Source, please.

2. The moon rock given to the dutch prime minister by the Apollo 11 astronauts that turned out to be petrified wood.

Already debunked several times previously in this thread. Pay attention, please.

3. The missing moon rocks all over the globe.

Really? Source, please.

4. and now a whole host of items have vanished from a museum, including a 70mm Apollo Hasselblad camera.

Also missing from the same museum:

Soviet In-flight Jacket
Oleg Makarov Soyuz T-3 Launch key
Dobrovolsky's Communist Party Card
Flown TM-2 Soviet World Map
53 Leaflets of WWII Aerial Propaganda
75 Each "Top Gun" Story Boards

Your own source

The only pattern I see here is a willful twisting of facts to serve an agenda.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
And where are the tests that showed NASA knew their glass was capable of blocking such radiation? We all know it was great as a heat shield, but radiation? Was it thick enough, was it the correct composition?

*Yawn*, as you're too lazy and incompetent as usual to find information for yourself Foos, here you go....

Combined space environment effects on typical spacecraft window materials final report, jun. 1964 - jun. 1965

edit on 13-9-2010 by AgentSmith because: Broken link

So.... what does the data reveal?
Or are you to "lazy and incompetent" to share that info with us?

You do know that these tests were to:

determine the optical degradation resulting from such exposure with the damage criterion being the observed change in spectral transmittance.

optical degradation... does that have anything to do with shielding?

NASA did end up using aluminosilicate right?
from your source:

Corning No. 1723 aluminosilicate glass, which changed significantly during the irradiation, still had reasonably high transmittance at the end of the test due to its very high initial transmittance (about 99%).

What does that mean. Does that mean radiation had no problem passing through the material? Is that good as a shield?

and

All of the plastics tested degraded to near opacity. As mentioned previously, this is probably due in part to the heating which resulted from accelerated testing. However, it is believed that the results do indicate poor radiation resistance of these materials, based on the assumption that regenerative destruction would not begin unless significant degradation, not dependent on a rate effect, had taken place first. After the initial degradation, absorption of the simulated solar energy heats the sample, producing more discoloration, absorbing more energy, etc.

As a layman, that doesn't sound so positive.
Can you explain how this actually sounds good?
I mean it sounds like these people wouldn't have been able to see out there windows after a period of time.

And if that is true, how did they manage to get all those clear photos through their windows?
I found this in the article to be interesting:

Its 1965 and:

Mention should be made of the existence of a radiation belt of high- energy electrons, created by the high-altitude nuclear explosion (Starfish) over Johnston Island on July 9, 1962 and to a slight extent later by Russian tests. The first informa- tion after the explosion was compiled by Hess (Ref. 43) from data taken from then existing satellites, primarily Telstar I. He estimated a peak flux of about 1. 6 x 109 electrons/cm2-sec with energies to 7 mev. According to the estimate of McIlwain (Ref. 25),

the lifetime may be long -- possibly ten years.

and what about:

Rockets have been flown into the auroral zones and have detected the presence of energetic protons and electrons. According to Dessler (Ref. 38), the proton flux above 100 kev lies generally between 105 protons/cm2-sec and 106 protons/cm2-sec. The electrons were nearly monoenergetic at around 6 kev (McIlwain, 1960). Other observations indicated 3 to 5 kev electrons with flux to lo1' electrons/cm2-sec.

Aural zones? First I ever heard of this, and secondly, why is that important for Apollo?

and what about:

The high energy particles, some of which may penetrate the vehicle and can also produce energetic bremsstrahlung, will be the greater hazard to the astronauts. As a worst case, using 108 protons/cm2-sec and 3 x lolo electrons/cm2-sec,

and assuming the vehicle to remain in the belts for 5 hours

(1. 8 x lo4 sec), the window would encounter 1.8 x 1012 protons/cm2 and 5.4 x 1014 electrons/cm2.

Where do they base this 5 hours from?

I dont get it, was the point of this document to answer my question? Or raise more?

Originally posted by FoosM
Or are you to "lazy and incompetent" to share that info with us?

No to be honest I was too busy to bother reading it as I only had a 10 minute break and I wanted to see exactly how hard it was to find the information. It seemed about right from the title so I actually did post it without checking. I would normally avoid doing something like this as I don't like looking foolish like I have done now, but I thought to myself, WWFD (What Would Foos Do) and decided there would be no harm in trying it. At the end of the day, there was a 50/50 chance it would be in my favour and for all I know you wouldn't bother reading it anyway. I also thought it looked quite complicated with lots of charts and numbers so if I just blagged it any readers would just assume I had one up on you and I'd get loads of stars and stuff and I'd feel better about myself knowing I'd won another round without even being right.
I failed miserably and look like a right idiot But I haven't had as much practise as you so I haven't got the technique down to a T just yet. I'm not sure it suits me to be honest so I'll probably try and avoid it in the future..
Touche anyway, well done

reply to post by FoosM

The transmittance of fused silica drops to 20% at 220nm. It is opaque to x-rays (which start at 10nm).

The density of fused silica is 2.203 g/cm^2. For glass 0.7" thick (the outer pane) that translates to a density of 3.9 g/cm^2. Add the inner panes and the density of the windows is in the neighborhood of 4.5 g/cm^2. That's more than half the density of the hull of the CM. Now calculate the amount of radiation penetrating the windows. Now look at the area of the windows. Now calculate the increased dose due to the small areas of reduced shielding resulting from the windows.

www.sciner.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
You do know that these tests were to:

determine the optical degradation resulting from such exposure with the damage criterion being the observed change in spectral transmittance.

optical degradation... does that have anything to do with shielding?

You state this, but then ask this:

Corning No. 1723 aluminosilicate glass, which changed significantly during the irradiation, still had reasonably high transmittance at the end of the test due to its very high initial transmittance (about 99%).

What does that mean. Does that mean radiation had no problem passing through the material? Is that good as a shield?

I think if you check back, you've answered your own question there... If by radiation you mean light, then yes it does pass through. Being windows this is probably a good thing.

All of the plastics tested degraded to near opacity. As mentioned previously, this is probably due in part to the heating which resulted from accelerated testing. However, it is believed that the results do indicate poor radiation resistance of these materials, based on the assumption that regenerative destruction would not begin unless significant degradation, not dependent on a rate effect, had taken place first. After the initial degradation, absorption of the simulated solar energy heats the sample, producing more discoloration, absorbing more energy, etc.

As a layman, that doesn't sound so positive.
Can you explain how this actually sounds good?

Well it's probably good that they had these tests to find the best materials to use then?

I mean it sounds like these people wouldn't have been able to see out there windows after a period of time.
And if that is true, how did they manage to get all those clear photos through their windows?

It's probably good then that as you stated:

NASA did end up using aluminosilicate right?

As well as the outer fused silica pane of course.

I found this in the article to be interesting:

Its 1965 and:

Mention should be made of the existence of a radiation belt of high- energy electrons, created by the high-altitude nuclear explosion (Starfish) over Johnston Island on July 9, 1962 and to a slight extent later by Russian tests. The first informa- tion after the explosion was compiled by Hess (Ref. 43) from data taken from then existing satellites, primarily Telstar I. He estimated a peak flux of about 1. 6 x 109 electrons/cm2-sec with energies to 7 mev. According to the estimate of McIlwain (Ref. 25),

the lifetime may be long -- possibly ten years.

OMG! Maybe NASA put it in there as a clue for you? Or maybe it's just more old hat that has been brought up again and again.

Rockets have been flown into the auroral zones and have detected the presence of energetic protons and electrons. According to Dessler (Ref. 38), the proton flux above 100 kev lies generally between 105 protons/cm2-sec and 106 protons/cm2-sec. The electrons were nearly monoenergetic at around 6 kev (McIlwain, 1960). Other observations indicated 3 to 5 kev electrons with flux to lo1' electrons/cm2-sec.

Aural zones? First I ever heard of this, and secondly, why is that important for Apollo?

Why don't you tell us?

Where do they base this 5 hours from?

Maybe they check the worst possible scenarios and go on the assumption if the materials pass then they will have no problem under normal or even abnormal conditions?

Once again anyway Foos, why have you kept ignoring the actual and recent data I showed you that has been published by other countries than the US of radiation levels in deep space and in the Van Allen belts including during SPEs? I would still be VERY interested in hearing your comments on these? As well as an apology from you for continually ignoring the evidence that SPEs are directional.
How do you also explain the ISS flying through the South Atlantic Anomaly several times a day?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Or are you to "lazy and incompetent" to share that info with us?

... At the end of the day, there was a 50/50 chance it would be in my favour and for all I know you wouldn't bother reading it anyway. I also thought it looked quite complicated with lots of charts and numbers so if I just blagged it any readers would just assume I had one up on you and I'd get loads of stars and stuff and I'd feel better about myself knowing I'd won another round without even being right.
I failed miserably and look like a right idiot

But I haven't had as much practise as you so I haven't got the technique down to a T just yet. I'm not sure it suits me to be honest so I'll probably try and avoid it in the future..
Touche anyway, well done

Looks like you got loads of stars regardless...

reply to post by FoosM


He got loads of stars for being honest and admitting he's fallible. You should try it some time.

Get your geology on people...

J.W. about ready to bring the moon rock question out of the stone age.
Will his next videos make him a rock star? Or will Apollo melt his wings and
have him fall on the rocks?

reply to post by FoosM


So you're just going to give up on radiation? Is there any reason to believe that Jarrah knows any more about geology than he does about physics... or photography... or even light and shadow? This could be hilarious!

How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings

www.jayweidner.com...

Have you all seen Jarrah White's Flagging the Gems videos? They are very damaging.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by WWu777


"Kubrick Faked Apollo" is such a load of horse manure!! That is not a fantasy scenario that rational, thinking adults will buy, because it's so ridiculous.

Kubrick was BUSY WITH HIS FILM! 2001: A Space Odyssey, starting in ~1964, and up until its release in 1968.

Sheesh! The Internets, and libraries, and many other sources are available, to know what the man was doing during those years. Here's a segment from Arthur C. Clarke's diary:

www.visual-memory.co.uk...

reply to post by WWu777

How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings

Why did Weidner use examples of front projection from the "Dawn of Man" sequence and not the "Moon Base" sequence? Oh yeah, because Kubrick didn't use front projection for the scenes in space! Why not? Front projection doesn't work if you project black on it!!! We've covered this issue many, many times on this thread already. As the OP, you really should look in more.