Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Proton Events:

The proton event forecast was fundamentally changed in Jan 2000. Prior to this the forecast was for the likelihood (probability) of the >10 MeV proton flux passing the 10 pfu event threshold (event onset). Events already in progress were not counted as events on subsequent days. In Jan 2000 the forecast was changed to be the likelihood that the >10 MeV proton flux would be above the 10 pfu event threshold on a given day. Thus events lasting several days after Jan 2000 constitute proton events on each of the days the event threshold is exceeded, not just on the day of event as before Jan 2000.

www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Ahhh.... so proton events that were already in progress during Apollo missions weren't counted!? This calls in the reliability of what NASA was measuring and publicizing to the public.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Don't bother. I just proved that they aren't interested in the truth. The video I posted removes any reasonable doubt from the equation. The debate is over - at least for reasonable people. If any of them can disprove the validity of the video and what it shows, then bring it. Otherwise they've got nothing.

Here it is again. Prove it wrong.

edit on 23-12-2010 by Smack because: nomnitive plural

You know what, instead of showing us how its the same.
Show us how the landscape is different.
Its been 40 years.
Meteors & Micrometeorites would be hitting the surface of the moon on a daily basis.
No?
If so, them the landscape should be altered with new craters, etc.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Don't bother. I just proved that they aren't interested in the truth. The video I posted removes any reasonable doubt from the equation. The debate is over - at least for reasonable people. If any of them can disprove the validity of the video and what it shows, then bring it. Otherwise they've got nothing.

Here it is again. Prove it wrong.

You know what, instead of showing us how its the same.
Show us how the landscape is different.
Its been 40 years.
Meteors & Micrometeorites would be hitting the surface of the moon on a daily basis.
No?
If so, them the landscape should be altered with new craters, etc.

No. That is for you to prove. You show us evidence that your assertion is true. The video speaks for itself.
I know that regardless of the evidence, you will never admit you were wrong, because your ego won't allow it.
You've proven that many times. But, you know what? You are wrong.

reply to post by Smack

No. That is for you to prove. You show us evidence that your assertion is true. The video speaks for itself.
I know that regardless of the evidence, you will never admit you were wrong, because your ego won't allow it.
You've proven that many times. But, you know what? You are wrong.

The video you posted states 6 inches/pixel..
As far as I'm aware the LRO film is 50cm/pixel..

Is that correct and if so, why the difference.?

edit:

High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 metres (1.6 ft)) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites

en.wikipedia.org...

And note, that is maximum...

reply to post by backinblack


Did you read the information that's below the video?

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by backinblack

 

Did you read the information that's below the video?

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.

To be honest no..I still don't see where you are saying it is..
But even your quote above says

enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel

Which is still less than half the resolution of 6 inches/pixel as the video stated and much better that the maximum of 50cm/pixel stated for the LRO..

Originally posted by backinblack
To be honest no..I still don't see where you are saying it is..

It's right below the video where it says the creators name (GoneToPlaid) and it starts off saying "See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Re..." Click on the double downward pointing arrows to read the rest.

But even your quote above says

enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel

Which is still less than half the resolution of 6 inches/pixel as the video stated and much better that the maximum of 50cm/pixel stated for the LRO..

Actually what it says is:

"The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel."

In other words, he has upscaled them somewhat.

Also, just to add. The LRO doesn't orbit at an even 50km. It goes as low as 37km, so there should be some images that are in the high 30cm/pixel range.

reply to post by jra

Actually what it says is: "The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel."

In other words, he has upscaled them somewhat.

Somewhat.???
The original LRO shots were 50cm/pixel....

He upscaled to around 15cm/pixel...

To me that's a tad more than somewhat.!!

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I still think it is rather odd for flights A7 and A8 to have exactly the same average readings (.16 rads). Is the reader of this report expected to conclude that this is the final word? The report leaves out A16 and A17 so it cannot be the final word.

Why is that odd? Because these two measured events turn out to have the same findings?

Scientific method, it actually works.

Those figures were from The report, "Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation" showed : and nataylor kindly posted them to the thread. I hope nataylor doesn't get mad that I repost his graphic again. Most recently posted on page 275. That NASA report is actually not based on the scientific method. It is based on the propaganda ability of NASA writers.

They establish the fact that A7 flight duration 10 d 20 h 09 m 03 s had an average dose of .16 while staying completely within low earth orbit at only 160 nautical miles (300 km). A8, flight duration 6 d 03 h 00 m 42 s had an average dose of .16 while on lunar expedition.

They are exactly the same. I did not see any margins for error in the report. These readings are presented by NASA to be 100% correct and true. And another thing bugs me about that report is the average dose reading for A14, 1.14 rads, flight duration 9 d 00 h 01 m 58 s, there was not any discussion in the report about this rather eye-popping and glaring wart on the rad report. Correct me if I am wrong.

Instead, the writers of that report filled a few pages discussing the radioactive buttons which they had replaced in the Lunar Module. They filled their empty report with fluff. They admittedly used radioactive luminescent paint on LCRU panels and made a big deal about that for several paragraphs.

That report "Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation" is a whitewash on space radiation. That report is intentionally vague and intentionally misleading. The table presented by NASA is only for the 3 passive thermoluminescent radiation devices. The table presented by NASA is not taken from the PRD, Personal Radiation Dosimeters nor any other devices. Only the passives. Ankle, thigh and chest.

Only the passives. Ankle, thigh and chest.

If I have explained to the best of my ability, theability.... What I am doing here is impeaching that document, challenging it's validity as a reliable scientific source for the basis of making logical conclusions about radiation in space. I know that nataylor posted some further publications by NASA but - my profuse apologies - I am a little behind the conversation and trying to stay catched up. This thread moves fast in all directions at once

This thread is like DEADLY COSMIC RADIATION We all know what happended to the Fantastic Four when they were exposed en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra

 

Actually what it says is: "The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel."

In other words, he has upscaled them somewhat.

Somewhat.???
The original LRO shots were 50cm/pixel....

He upscaled to around 15cm/pixel...

To me that's a tad more than somewhat.!!

edit on 24-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

This question is very important. All of those original source materials trace back to the same source.... don't they?

NASA deletes original source material. They pretend like this is no big deal. From the wiki :

This article incorrectly reports that magnetic tapes of first moon landing and five other Apollo missions are missing. This is erroneous. Only the magnetic data tapes containing the recorded transmission from the moon's surface are missing. The data on these tapes includes the original slow-scan TV signals, plus voice and telemetry data of the first Apollo landing. The originally broadcast conversion of the slow-scan recordings of the landing are preserved at the National Archives.

But then there are the McMoon tapes.

Dennis Wingo at Maker Fair: McMoon's - Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project May 29, 2010 "We took 40 year old data tapes, tape drives that had been in a garage for 30 years, found elderly engineers, and reverse-engineered ancient technology to provide enhanced imagery from the five Lunar Orbiter missions in a fashion - and resolution - inconceivable at the time that the missions were conducted." Source : www.nasawatch.com...

I would like to say that I am still unclear about the details. There was a search going on for the original SSTV tapes, but that search concluded that those tapes were erased. But during the same time frame, or shortly thereafter, there is found a huge stockpile of pre-Apollo tapes. Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

and reverse-engineered ancient technology to provide enhanced imagery from the five Lunar Orbiter missions in a fashion - and resolution - inconceivable at the time that the missions were conducted." Source : www.nasawatch.com...

lol, you can not improve what isn't there..
You can only imagine or make up what you think should be there...

reply to post by FoosM


Look at the long shadows from the lander, they reach all the way to the crater on the right. These are some very long shadows. How tall is the Lunar Module? Can the Lunar Module cast a shadow like that?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Look at the long shadows from the lander, they reach all the way to the crater on the right. These are some very long shadows. How tall is the Lunar Module? Can the Lunar Module cast a shadow like that?

I thought it wasn't the lunar module..
Just the bottom base part that was left behind..
So not very tall at all...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Look at the long shadows from the lander, they reach all the way to the crater on the right. These are some very long shadows. How tall is the Lunar Module? Can the Lunar Module cast a shadow like that?

I thought it wasn't the lunar module..
Just the bottom base part that was left behind..
So not very tall at all...

How does that shadow get all the way to crater?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


What was left behind was around 8' tall..
Still amazing there was no blast crater..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


This pic from apollo 16 seems odd..
The footprints don't seem to follow in step.
and the rover tracks do not look right for a 4 wheel vehicle..There's only one track for each..

I'm sure someone will explain it..

reply to post by backinblack

I'm sure someone will explain it..

That is your problem in a nutshell. You're waiting for someone else to do all the work for you. Then you try to pick apart the explanation with your feeble, ignorant arguments. You can't be bothered with facts, because that would get in the way of your agenda. This is why I am ignoring you.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What was left behind was around 8' tall..
Still amazing there was no blast crater..

Seems your "just asking questions" routine is getting a bit stale.....

reply to post by backinblack

Still amazing there was no blast crater..

Why? Was there a blast crater under the Armadillo Aerospace craft in the video I posted a mere three pages ago? I knew the "blast crater argument" would come up the moment the "radiation argument" died. There was no blast crater because there was no blast. The exhaust from the lander was a stream of hot gas that diminished as the lander approached the ground. When it landed, the thrust went completely to zero. No blast.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

That NASA report is actually not based on the scientific method. It is based on the propaganda ability of NASA writers.

Thank you for abandoning your thin pretense of skepticism and objectivity. The reason why the table lists averages is because the average dose is what is of interest. Space has weather; planners of future spaceflights want to know what this weather is "usually" like, and how it is likely to affect future crews. The passive dosimeter measures the total cumulative dose and is therefor the proper measuring instrument to get this average. (Don't be put off by the word "passive.")

As for the "fluff" you mention: why would they take such great care to shield the astronauts from the radioactivity coming from the luminescent switches? Why even have glow in the dark switches if the switches don't really do anything? How much research did these propagandists have to do to fool people who study radiation for a living?