Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

 

Man Foosm your video proves you wrong :shk:

At 6:49 its states

...That 50 years of NASA research NASA shown that effective shielding....

You sure don't pay any attention to what you post, as usually Foosm your best work, proving yourself wrong with your own posts.

Classic....

How does it prove me wrong?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Puzzling, Foos...because, on one hand....you start out your post (being replied to here) with the SAME already-explained nonsense....already told to you how wrong it is,

So what?
Did you land on the moon? No.
All you can offer is an opinion and use NASA's own information to make your arguments.
Problem is NASA lies.

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you have data that it didnt?

Yes, the actual measurements of radiation received by the crew. as reported in the Protection Against Radiation section of the Apollo Experience Report.



In summary:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo mission 7 to 15 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

Absolutely none of what you present suggests that radiation was any kind of problem for the Apollo program. you need to show actual data that would make travel to the moon impossible. Merely saying that scientists wish to better understand the radiation environment does not mean that the environment is impassible. Scientists today wish to better study ocean and wind currents, but that doesn't mean Columbus didn't make his trip to the New World.

reply to post by FoosM

How does it prove me wrong?

You haven't been right yet about anything to do with Apollo.

Every time you post something now I'll include links to show you inability to see reason. You have ask all this over and over.

Nothing you say is new, actually its getting to be quite old now.


Another foosm quote

So what?
Did you land on the moon? No.
All you can offer is an opinion and use NASA's own information to make your arguments.
Problem is NASA lies.

Personal opinion nothing more, you have failed to prove other wise.

Special Bulletin!!

This Just In: (for SayonaraJupiter):

The incredible (and vile) comment made by (your "idol" Jarrah White) regarding the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy, that was revealed in the 2008 radio interview, already posted?

Seems that the notion spewed from Jarrah White's lips of an intentional destruction of the Shuttle, by NASA, came originally.....ORIGINALLY!!.....from none other than that whack job Bill Kaysing!! In 1996!!:

To give you an idea of the type of person Bill Kaysing is have a look at this:

An interview with Bill Kaysing by Nardwuar Feb 16th 1996.
The following are extracts, the full transcript can be viewed at Nardwuar interviews Kaysing

Nardwuar: How much space stuff since 1959 has been real? What space stuff is real today? Did the Challenger blow up? Did NASA know it would blow up?

(Kaysing): Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

www.thekeyboard.org.uk...


THAT, friends, is just one example of why Jarrah White is a total fraud, and CERTAINLY no "genius".

Just a troubled young man (that one's for YOU, SJ...) who has no original thoughts in his head, regarding this ridiculous topic of Apollo "hoax"....he just swallows, and then regurgitates, the same crap that others have spewed before him. Presenting it with more "bells and whistles"....but, ultimately??

A polished turd is STILL just.....a turd.

Omg she wasn't going with the lie you can't see stars in space? Holy hell that is just hilarious

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Omg she wasn't going with the lie you can't see stars in space? Holy hell that is just hilarious

Shocking! So Hubble was what? CGI? Did someone paint the pictures on the lens? What about all of those photos of stars from the ISS and the shuttle? I really wish these wackos would put a little more effort into it.

(Kaysing): Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

Nope, they couldn't knock her off in a car crash before the mission, or expose her to measles, or have her break her leg to keep her out of space.

NOOOOOO. Instead of something easy like that, they blow up an ENTIRE MULTI-BILLION SHUTTLE.

It's a shame Kaysing is dead, cause I'd really like to wish ill on him.

I guess JW will have to do as a replacement.

reply to post by Tomblvd

I guess JW will have to do as a replacement.

So far JW might just do out his predecessors with this claim.

Such ignorance, truly a waste.

Jarrah White you should be ashamed.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you have data that it didnt?

Yes, the actual measurements of radiation received by the crew. as reported in the Protection Against Radiation section of the Apollo Experience Report.

In summary:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo mission 7 to 15 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected.

Absolutely none of what you present suggests that radiation was any kind of problem for the Apollo program. you need to show actual data that would make travel to the moon impossible. Merely saying that scientists wish to better understand the radiation environment does not mean that the environment is impassible. Scientists today wish to better study ocean and wind currents, but that doesn't mean Columbus didn't make his trip to the New World.

Nat that is a circular argument.
If NASA was going to fake a moonlanding, which they did, of course they would also fake
the data that came with it.

Where is your proof that NASA was prepared for any radiation that they would encounter space?

Originally posted by Smack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Omg she wasn't going with the lie you can't see stars in space? Holy hell that is just hilarious

Shocking! So Hubble was what? CGI? Did someone paint the pictures on the lens? What about all of those photos of stars from the ISS and the shuttle? I really wish these wackos would put a little more effort into it.

What photos of stars from the ISS and shuttle?

Originally posted by Tomblvd

(Kaysing): Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

Nope, they couldn't knock her off in a car crash before the mission, or expose her to measles, or have her break her leg to keep her out of space.
.

A spectacular crash would serve as a deterrent for any other civilians wanting to go into space.
Or to stall the progress of any true moon missions.
But that is not to say that I necessarily believe it was intentional.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


The space radiation science data that existed in NASA's possession as of December 21st, 1968 was inadequate and necessarily leads to the radical conclusion that the history of Apollo 8 - Apollo ? - were not based on science at all. The Apollo 8 story was partly constructed from theoretical sciences and a severe lack of radiation data.

Looking at the radiation argument from a different perspective we can see how NASA accumulated NO DATA with regard to human tissue/live animal testing beyond the VAB's prior to the launch of Apollo 8 on December 21, 1968. Now you may understand how JW's radiation argument (built upon previous research) is so significant from a real historical perspective.

NASA didn't know anything about space radiation beyond the VAB when Apollo 8 was launched. I have been informed by nataylor of some conferences where research papers had been submitted between 1964 and 1967. Page after page of Monte Carlo simulations which are developed by computer and this is scientific code language for "we made a theory, we guessed a lot and used random numbers, it's in the report".

Am I the only one who recognizes the important difference between scientific theory, method and practice? By skipping over the necessary steps of valid science NASA has done a magician's trick which requires a genuine leap of faith to believe.

So the fantasic story of Apollo 8 is also fantastic question. Where was the hard science done by NASA to show that a human being (or 3!) could survive beyond the VAB into deep space for any duration of time?

That science data simply does not exist. Therefore, the radical conclusion, must be - a leap of faith.

This line of thinking provided a whole new meaning to Armstrong's words "That's one small step for man - a giant leap for mankind."

I think this should be brought up again.
So far nobody has been able to address it.

Originally planned as a second Lunar Module/Command Module test in an elliptical medium Earth orbit in early 1969, the mission profile was changed in August 1968 to a more ambitious Command Module-only lunar orbital flight to be flown in December, because the Lunar Module was not ready to make its first flight then. This meant Borman's crew was scheduled to fly two to three months sooner than originally planned, leaving them a shorter time for training and preparation, thus placing more demands than usual on their time and discipline.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by FoosM

Nat that is a circular argument.
If NASA was going to fake a moonlanding, which they did, of course they would also fake
the data that came with it.

Where is your proof that NASA was prepared for any radiation that they would encounter space?

Were is your independent data that indicates the NASA data is somehow wrong? If you think the NASA data is wrong, you have to base that on SOMETHING.

My proof has been posted numerous times already. Radiation, shielding, and proper procedures were a serious concern, and much effort was expended to give acceptable protection to the crews for their short journeys.

reply to post by FoosM

A spectacular crash would serve as a deterrent for any other civilians wanting to go into space.
Or to stall the progress of any true moon missions.
But that is not to say that I necessarily believe it was intentional.

Foosm Your friend Jarrah White's days are done number here. That comment about purposefully destroying a multi-billion dollar spacecraft to silence Challenger astronauts has to be the most vile of claim made by the anyone to date in this thread.

Without fail you have lost any and all credibility for supporting pathetic excuses of human beings like JW.

I see that fools lead fools, and Foosm you must feel right at home with Jarrah White!

The grandson of the Apollo Moon hoax is a ignorant Fool!

Originally posted by FoosM
What photos of stars from the ISS and shuttle?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of them. I suggest following the ISS astronauts on Twitter. They post many wonderful photos. Here are just a couple of beautiful ones (click through to go view the full-size images):

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
What photos of stars from the ISS and shuttle?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of them. I suggest following the ISS astronauts on Twitter. They post many wonderful photos. Here are just a couple of beautiful ones (click through to go view the full-size images):

edit on 14-12-2010 by nataylor because: Fixed link

Wow! Thanks for that twitter link. Such beauty! I want to go to space, dammit!

Oh, and FoosM, you were wrong. Will you finally admit it for once? Or perhaps you think those photos are fake.
Those NASA people are such duplicitous swine, aren't they? I mean the gall of them faking stars in outer space.

Hey, where is Sayonara? Curiouser and curiouser....

reply to post by Smack

Hey, where is Sayonara? Curiouser and curiouser....

He's hiding under the name Foosm!

Definitely going into space would be the adventure of a lifetime!!!

Great images for sure.

reply to post by FoosM


Of all the ignorant, clutching-at-straws posts you have made, in this thread .....

.....(not to mention, deliberately omitting salient parts of sources you quote-mine from, and selectively changing the context of others...in addition to posting, without comment, spam videos merely to distract, and deflect, and derail the topic....AND, the times have avoided direct challenges, when posed).....

On top of ALL that egregious behavior, this stands out as THE most desperate attempt seen. to date:

A spectacular crash would serve as a deterrent for any other civilians wanting to go into space.

Indicative, truly, of a person who has nothing left in his bag of tricks. For, it is dead easy to point to the CIVILIANS who have participated at NASA...before and SINCE the Challenger tragedy!!!

AND, the very idea of a "civilian" is disingenuously used, here, to convey a "meaning" that is not pertinent.

Oh....and this is a recent update, from the NASA site, but you can surely check history on it....these are the current listed QUALIFICATIONS for anyone to apply for a job as an Astronaut with NASA:

nasajobs.nasa.gov...


Now this?? I said the above was a sign of desperation...the penultimate sign...so, not sure how to categorize this, except to say it deserves its own special award, of some sort......

Or to stall the progress of any true moon missions.

You are speaking to adults, here, with their full faculties intact. Your feeble attempts at rationalizations are futile.....


Oh, and an article dated THIS MONTH (December, 2010):

Right now, NASA has 64 astronauts......The 47 civilian astronauts earn between $65,000 and $100,000 annually, with the remaining military astronauts being paid through the Department of Defense (DoD) which NASA reimburses.

How Many Astronauts Does NASA Need? (December 7, 2010)


AND, knock yourself out with these sources:

List of astronauts by year of selection.

(Includes all nationalities, so you will have to weed through to find all of the Americans).

Oh, and here is an Alphabetical List also, for your convenience.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just to make it easy for you, here's an example....it is Astronaut Mary L. Cleave's WIki entry, a short bio.

Note, in particular, her hire date at NASA. May 1980. Her last flight into space, on STS-30, May 4-8, 1989.

Any idea when the Shuttle Challenger tragedy occurred? Any at all??

....thought so.......

reply to post by FoosM

I think this should be brought up again.
So far nobody has been able to address it.

As usual, the article you quote provides the answer. If you had read through it, you would know that Grumman's delay in developing the LM led to the possibility that the time-table would be pushed back to prevent an actual landing "before the decade is out." By launching Apollo 8 to the Moon and returning it safely to the Earth in 1968, NASA could claim to have accomplished its goal "in essence." It was a political decision.