Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Foos, you called me a liar. I am waiting for you to either prove the statement or retract it.

I did prove it, now you want me to state that you are delusional as well ?

Originally posted by DJW001


We can easily deduce what these differences are, and prove them with our own eyes. The implications are staggering: if our observations are correct, the samples of materials collected by the astronauts can only have originated on the Moon!

Do you see where this argument is going, FoosM? Would you care to refute any of the claims made thus far? I'll give you some time to digest these posts before continuing. As a special treat, the next few posts will include a video.

But unfortunately since man never landed on the moon in the '60s and '70s to collect samples, we will never know.

Pretty pictures though

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Foos, you called me a liar. I am waiting for you to either prove the statement or retract it.

I did prove it, now you want me to state that you are delusional as well ?

I see no proof.

Does anybody else?

Now please, provide proof of my lies, multiple, as you did say "And you have been lying for quite some time now." or retract the claim.

reply to post by FoosM

Well its confirmed,
the Apollo moonlandings are based on a... book!?

Arthur C. Clarke also wrote about telecommunications satellites back in the 1940's. Does that mean your cell phone is a hoax?

reply to post by FoosM

But unfortunately since man never landed on the moon in the '60s and '70s to collect samples, we will never know.

That's for you to prove. You have failed thus far. In any event, we will first examine the samples of lunar soil returned by Lunakhod,and determine whether they are genuine. We can then compare the Apollo samples to them for confirmation by an outside source. Patience, FoosM, we haven't even gotten to the "Atomic Theory of Matter" yet. It is crucial to the argument. By the way, what do you make of this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/744157788ded.jpg[/atsimg]

Soviet robotic lander Luna 17 still sitting on Mare Imbrium where it delivered the Lunokhod 1 Rover in November 1970. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University.

NASA

You can see the tracks and everything on the above web page. Let me guess: fake?

Foos, I'm still waiting.

You called me a serial liar. Either prove it or post a retraction.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
One of the astronauts does not have his gold visor down and like walks right
into the sunlight.

The inner surface of the polysulfone sun visor has a gold coating which provides protection against light and reduces heat gain within the helmet. The visor can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions by exerting a force of 2 to 4 pounds on the pull tabs. The sun visor cannot be independently lowered unless the protective visor is in the Down position, but it can be raised or lowered independently when the center eyeshade is in the full-Up position and the protective visor is in the Down position.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



Thanks for reminding us that those Astros had no protection against ionized radiation found in space.
And my issue wasnt with the astro getting a sun tan, it was actually that he could have been blinded by accidentally looking at the Sun. Which was the reason for the gold visor.

Foos, still waiting.........

reply to post by FoosM


Nope. Nope.

Which was the reason for the gold visor.

Nope. Or, show the proof.

...he could have been blinded by accidentally looking at the Sun.

????

Really? What happens to you (or anyone...I'd say every mammal that evolved on Earth, too. Along with other genus)?? What is reflexive, when a very bright light impinges on your eye? Do you have eyelids???



Did you read everything, and think the gold visor would allow suffiecient protection to look directly into the Sun??

Really?

Have you ever seen the sorts of filters needed, to protect your eyes, when observing Solar eclipses?? (Hint: They aren't "gold plated" visors....)

reply to post by FoosM

Thanks for reminding us that those Astros had no protection against ionized radiation found in space.

You mean ionizing radiation. For the most part it's just whimpy little electrons that can't penetrate a piece of nylon. There are some heavies up there, but the worst of the lot could rip through the magnetosphere and atmosphere anyway. As has been patiently explained, it is a matter of exposure: energy levels, flux and time.

reply to post by DJW001


I thought FooS lost the radiation argument. Didn't we prove that he was completely ignorant of even the most basic knowledge concerning radiation? Why would he bring that sore subject up again?

It is puzzling....

This entire thread is a gigantic exercise in circular logic. Remember the old quote about insanity?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - A.Einstein.

Here is another quote, apropos of this thread: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard P. Feynman

reply to post by Smack


Correct. At this point, I am clearly more interested in educating casual readers than convincing FoosM of anything. I am psychologically prepared to explain how any intelligent child with access to dry ice and an alpha source can construct a cloud chamber cum cosmic ray detector out of a glass jar and black construction paper. ("Grampa, can I borrow your Rolex?")

reply to post by DJW001


DJW001, you seem to be fairly knowledgeable on this topic,

I neither believe or disbelieve the hoax theory, in fact I hope we really did walk on the moon, but I enjoy looking at the evidence from both sides of the issue. By no means am I an expert on the subject but this thread did cause me to view quite a few of Jarrah White's videos and I have some questions for you (or anybody else) if you don't mind.

As I understand the scientific method a hypothesis or experiment is only proven as fact if it can be or is repeated successfully by independent researchers using the same methods.

Using the scientific method - the claims that NASA and the US landed man on the moon and that breaching the Van Allen belt can be done without harm to humans and are the only ones to have done so, does this not mean that these claims have not been independently verified and therefore not proven as fact?

Where I am coming from here is that other means of proving that we did land men there, that I saw, are not conclusive.

Two methods I saw in his videos were the bouncing of the laser beams off reflectors, Jarrah showed evidence that the Russians were doing this before Sputknik. And what occurred to me is that as the Russians landed an unmanned probe on the moon before Apollo 11 landed couldn't this reflector have been landed remotely also?

The other thing that intrigued me was the evidence he presented where the moon rocks and soil samples all had the same constituent components and isotopes as Earth matter.

Where do we find the independently verified, conclusive evidence that has not originated from NASA?

I'm not interested in a character or credibility attack on Jarrah White so please anybody don't bother responding in that way, I just want to discuss the evidence.

KtK, may i say it's a pleasure to see a considered, polite post! I'm not DJW, and he'll no doubt have his own take, but if I may...

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
As I understand the scientific method a hypothesis or experiment is only proven as fact if it can be or is repeated successfully by independent researchers using the same methods.[

No, that's not correct. Indeed, nothing is ever completely 100% proven. Hypotheses/theories are offered to fit the facts/observations, and if anything cannot be explained by the hypotheses, then a new one (or amendment) may be required. Repeatability is just one of many applicable tests, and in some cases it is simply not possible, practicable or applicable. Apollo deniers often wave it about, as it is the one they can use to try to convince people who have little grasp of what science is about.

Eg, did World War II happen? Well, it's not very likely to be repeated. How about the Concorde? So is repeatability a useful tool for historic events or breakthroughs that were driven by the historical conditions?

Using the scientific method - the claims that NASA and the US landed man on the moon and that breaching the Van Allen belt can be done without harm to humans and are the only ones to have done so, does this not mean that these claims have not been independently verified and therefore not proven as fact?

Nope. Firstly, plenty of humans and animals have been subjected to the same levels of radiation and more, both in space and here on earth. The type and amount and duration of the radiation is pretty well understood. Not perfect, but pretty close. All the later tests and probes and the knowledge we gained during Apollo and then ISS to name just two, have all refined our understanding, and have simply shown that the numbers and assumptions used during Apollo were quite appropriate. The amount of radiation that has since been found to exist in the VA belts and beyond using much more accurate testing methods, is pretty much exactly what was expected and identified by NASA before Apollo. They took precautions that were reasonable. BTW, I have a LOT of new information that pertains to the radiation question, and I really will eventually be finishing it all off and posting the concluding parts to the 'treatise' I began earlier... Maybe I'll even do it before Christmas!

Where I am coming from here is that other means of proving that we did land men there, that I saw, are not conclusive.

Nothing can ever be conclusive. But if you come up with a theory that has all the holes that the apollo denial has, then it needs to be better than the 'accepted' theory, that we just sort of...went.

Two methods I saw in his videos were the bouncing of the laser beams off reflectors, Jarrah showed evidence that the Russians were doing this before Sputknik. And what occurred to me is that as the Russians landed an unmanned probe on the moon before Apollo 11 landed couldn't this reflector have been landed remotely also?

Given that independent organisations across the globe were using those reflectors immediately after they were deployed, then they must have been deployed at the time of Apollo...

The other thing that intrigued me was the evidence he presented where the moon rocks and soil samples all had the same constituent components and isotopes as Earth matter.

I'm sorry but.. WHAT????? The lunar samples are NOTHING like earth materials, and they are immediately recognisable (and have been recognised by 100's of independent geologists across the globe) as having characteristics that are not only vastly different to earth materials, but those characteristics simply cannot be faked. This has been covered at length here and is pretty much beyond dispute except by those without any relevant understanding of how lunar conditions affect the soil and rocks - by all means Google it.

Where do we find the independently verified, conclusive evidence that has not originated from NASA?

1. Well over 400,000 people, many of whom were NOT directly employed by NASA, and all of the organisations and countries that employed them, the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek operators in Australia. I've personally met at least a dozen of those people.
2. Many hundreds of enthusiasts who observed multiple aspects of the missions using telescopes and radio equipment.
3. Every geologist who has examined those lunar samples (and the huge amount of samples brought back)
4. Jaxa Selene Kaguya
5. Chandrayaan
6. Every space agency
7. Every government
8. Every recognised science institution
9. Thousands of science and engineering journals who have reported in great length on every aspect of the missions
10. Every recognised scientist and engineer (ie MILLIONS of them) except a few (and those few are easy to prove as liars and charlatans, who not only post lies, but also lie about their background)

I'm not interested in a character or credibility attack on Jarrah White so please anybody don't bother responding in that way, I just want to discuss the evidence.

So, instead of the non-specifics, tell us - what is the most convincing piece of evidence that you have seen, and are you familiar with the science/engineering/photographics.. fields involved? In what way do you question the debunking in this thread?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
On the "pro" side, only forgot the Indian spacecraft Lunar mission. Did some science, took pictures. Camera resolution not as good as the LRO, however. Chandrayaan-1.

en.wikipedia.org...

Chandrayaan-2 will launch in 2013. spaceflightnow.com...

The Apollo "hoax" believers will soon be just a fading memory.......

Just letting you know your first link doesn't work.
It should be: en.wikipedia.org...

I'm curious; how do India's Chandrayan craft prove that America put atronauts on the moon?

It's not that I'm a moon landing sceptic, it's just that I'm surprised to see some of the points offered as proof.

reply to post by DJW001


I think you killed Foos!
The total amount of soil and rocks that NASA claimed to have brought here from the moon is an absurd amount/weight. (comparatively to all the other country's amounts/weights combined)
Moon Faker, rocks

You five or six guys are real TROLLS, just to say it. Bashing, flocking together, hate. This thread is a shame! Some of you started with good facts, but this last few pages had a really bad taste, I am done here.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown


As I understand the scientific method a hypothesis or experiment is only proven as fact if it can be or is repeated successfully by independent researchers using the same methods.

That only applies to theories. The Apollo missions are part of history, and were repeated successfully, I'd like to ad. So your point doesn't apply. There are many historic occasions that have not been repeated, that are taken as fact.

Using the scientific method - the claims that NASA and the US landed man on the moon and that breaching the Van Allen belt can be done without harm to humans and are the only ones to have done so, does this not mean that these claims have not been independently verified and therefore not proven as fact?

Every country that has sent a probe to the moon; Russia, Japan, India, ESA; have had to penetrate the VABs. Therefore the numbers are well known.

In addition, every satellite in geosynchronous or geostationary orbit spends its entire functional lifetime in the VABs. The engineers who design these have to know the amount and type of radiation in the belts to a very accurate degree in order to properly shield their sensitive electronics. Since many countries have satellites up, every one of them knows the amount of radiation in the belts.

Furthermore, the trajectory of the Apollo mission were designed to miss the heaviest portions of the belts. Here is a website that shows, both graphically and mathematically, those trajectories:

www.braeunig.us...

Two methods I saw in his videos were the bouncing of the laser beams off reflectors, Jarrah showed evidence that the Russians were doing this before Sputknik. And what occurred to me is that as the Russians landed an unmanned probe on the moon before Apollo 11 landed couldn't this reflector have been landed remotely also?

It has to do with photon count. When I bounce a laser at a wall, I can record a few scattered photons coming back to my detector. However, if I put a mirror on the wall and aim the laser at it, I will see a very large spike in the number of photons coming back. That is what every person who has tried to hit the reflectors have found. When they aim a laser at the moon, they get a small background scatter until they find one of the reflectors, at which time they get a great increase of the number of photons returned.

The other thing that intrigued me was the evidence he presented where the moon rocks and soil samples all had the same constituent components and isotopes as Earth matter.

That is completely and totally incorrect.

meteorites.wustl.edu...

I'm not interested in a character or credibility attack on Jarrah White so please anybody don't bother responding in that way, I just want to discuss the evidence.

Given his track record, I wouldn't want to discuss it either. ;-)

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by weedwhacker
On the "pro" side, only forgot the Indian spacecraft Lunar mission. Did some science, took pictures. Camera resolution not as good as the LRO, however. Chandrayaan-1.

en.wikipedia.org...

Chandrayaan-2 will launch in 2013. spaceflightnow.com...

The Apollo "hoax" believers will soon be just a fading memory.......

Just letting you know your first link doesn't work.
It should be: en.wikipedia.org...

I'm curious; how do India's Chandrayan craft prove that America put atronauts on the moon?

It's not that I'm a moon landing sceptic, it's just that I'm surprised to see some of the points offered as proof.

It obviously means very little taken alone. However, the ISRO has stated they have found evidence of disturbed soil in the same areas as the Apollo missions. Since we are told this is a conspiracy by NASA, why would the Indians lie?

The same goes with the Japanese. Their SELENE probe was able to furnish beautiful digital recreations of panoramas of some of the Apollo sites that match the pictures perfectly. There is absolutely no way that could be faked unless the Japanese are ALSO in on the conspiracy.

www.jaxa.jp... (see figure 5)

You see how the conspiracy just grows and grows and grows......?

reply to post by FoosM

Wow talk about the full circle trick. But just for the heck of it, let me humor your questions:

Thanks for reminding us that those Astros had no protection against ionized radiation found in space. And my issue wasnt with the astro getting a sun tan, it was actually that he could have been blinded by accidentally looking at the Sun. Which was the reason for the gold visor.

Examples of ionizing particles are energetic alpha particles, beta particles, and neutrons.

Source
Before I tread this I must redirect.....

I think you've been here before Foosm haven't you? Like you haven't said anything about radiation?

Radiation Of course we cant get to the moon because of radiation. Short stay on the moon's surface? What about the trip itself? These guys supposedly went through an unmapped VA belt, during a period of high solar activity, and pranced around on a radiated moon. Even low doses of radiation can be deadly- as in cancer causing. And if it doesnt kill you, it can at least it can make you sick: Radiation Nausea Hair Loss Fatigue / Malaise Low Blood Count You dont need high doses! When we speak of high doses we are speaking of dying within short period of time. In terms of protection, gold foil on the LM, well that was on the lower part of the LM, not the ascent stage where the Astros were staying. So I dont see how that helped. And please tell me what part of the boots or space suits protected the Astronots against radiation? This is how much NASA knows about space Radiation:

post by FoosM
That was your first post on this thread. And it is about radiation. :shk:
I am going to throw out a friendly reminder of the motto of ATS: Deny Ignorance.

Let me see if there is a pattern here...

Radiation: Apollo Astronots were not in danger of radiation because they never went to the moon.

post by FoosM
Ok that was like your fifth post.... Still on the first page.

The first issue.At what setting could this photo be taken where you point the camera directly an unfiltered sun, and have the rest of the photo still be exposed?How could photo even be possible with direct solar radiation hitting the film?

post by FoosM
That was on the third page, BTW of your posts only There are 40 pages of your posts in this thread alone. Now, continuing on with the "radiation" circle trick

JW might be biased, but one cant say he doesn't try to find as many sources to prove his point. And thats what makes his series so compelling. After I watched Radioactive Anomaly it was the nail in the coffin for me.

post by FoosM Page 6 Still Have 34 more pages to go!

1. Is cosmic radiation a danger to astronauts and their ships?
2. What do you mean there was no extinction level event in the 60's or 70's?
Is that because no astronauts died? Well then that would be a circular argument.
3. What calculation was used to take the risk? Where are the numbers?

post by FoosM

Wow Page 9....:O Look what I found!

Why would he have to put down the gold visor?

post by FoosM
The first time you mentioned the "gold" visor. Yet 230 Pages later you act like this subject is sparkly clean and fresh! Oh brother Hm Now another reminder of what ATS is about, Deny Ignorance!

Please, let me continue by all means! The full circle trick! Moving along like someone I know!

and what if the astronaut was on the moon's surface? and what about Bemsstrahlung?

Wow, in your heat-of-the-moment, you tried using a very big and foreign word, but did you ever take a second to read what it actually means? Like I have to ask. :@@ You make this question simple to answer.

Strictly speaking, Bremsstrahlung refers to any radiation due to the acceleration of a charged particle, which includes synchrotron radiation; however, it is frequently used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons stopping in matter.Bremsstrahlung emitted from plasma is sometimes referred to as free-free radiation.

Source
Well Duh, :shk: no you didn't! Otherwise you'd have know that word you used, happens in particle accelerators!!! Plus that 1.) Large Magnetic Fields are not present on the moon. 2.) Plasma isn't much of an issue when traveling to the moon either.

A synchrotron is a particular type of cyclic particle accelerator in which the magnetic field (to turn the particles so they circulate) and the electric field (to accelerate the particles) are carefully synchronized with the traveling particle beam.

Source

Whats a quick trip back to earth? Thats a very vague answer, wouldn't you agree? I mean, how soon after exposure would you need medical attention to offset some of the damage?

post by FoosM

whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert?

post by FoosM :shk:

In other words its not about the type its the damage to the body. what you are probably thinking of is absorbed dose:

post by FoosM

More Documentation of the Full Circle tricks......Only made it to Page ten, out of Forty!!!

Yes it does when your talking about Sieverts and REM. You just dont know what your talking about. You just copied the same thing I did to make your point that I had already made. Excuse me while I go....

post by FoosM

HAHA A real smoking gun, the admission of copy and paste, the full circle trick isn't going to fly....Oh btw You know what your talking about? Man with what you say in your quotes you sure could have fooled me!

And here is the last quote of the Saturday morning!

I was not addressing the questions to you, so now you have just cluttered this thread with a nonsense response. You dont know the answers- good for you. I can see that when you dont know something, you find it ha ha silly. You need a straight jacket?

post by FoosM

Foosm It looks like you violated the Terms and Conditions on that quote :shk:

Now back to your response, some 240 pages and 4700 posts later:

Thanks for reminding us that those Astros had no protection against ionized radiation found in space.
And my issue wasnt with the astro getting a sun tan, it was actually that he could have been blinded by accidentally looking at the Sun. Which was the reason for the gold visor.

Now after the redirect to show how untruthful you have been in this thread let me stated for the record:

Examples of ionizing particles are energetic alpha particles, beta particles, and neutrons.

Source
The Ionizing particles that you claim is found in space is just that, traveling through space, Vacuum being the medium. If particles occupied space, it really would be a vacuum now would it? [ So much for you physics lessons ]

These radiative particles are randomly scattered about, in minute quantities.

For if such harsh conditions exist; then why are we here Foosm?

Next the Issue of the "tan", once again... Do you know what BlackBody temperature is?

Given the distance from the Sun to Earth/Moon System orbits, the local ambient temp in local space, vacuum:
270 Kelvins
-3.15 degrees celsius
26.33 degrees Fahrenheit!!
BackBodyTemp

Now the reason why I brought this up [again] is the comment about the the gold visor and the sun tan:

By the Time the Apollo 11 crew was EVA the local temp was about ~80 Fahrenheit nominal. With variations to +250F maximum Sunlight Conditions; down to -250F in shadow. The only thing the sun was going to so is make it difficult to see outside. Hence the need for really cool sunglasses [Apollo LEVA] to block the MAGNITUDE of that star creating pure light 93 million miles away. As well as being a shield and protector.

The issue with radiation has been discussed by you to DEATH! This all has been answered and you are fully aware of running around in circles. No more of that. It has ALL been Covered in this thread.

Oh and of course..... After taking the time to prose some your "style" of wisdom:

I see you still haven't read [nor learned] anything [that others suggest] about radiation in space, or the simple fact the sun is bright, but not always hot, in the right conditions.