Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

While he discusses current "lies"regarding the reported demise of OBL.

Notice how he twisted a speculation into a "fact?" The article said that bin Laden has "most likely," that is, "probably" already died due to renal failure. In JW's obsessive mind, this became a statement of fact, and thus a lie. He then collapses an entire train of historical events into a personal rant. Since he is on record claiming that he believes that NASA is responsible for the demolition of the World Trade Center, I wonder why he didn't demand that they be put on trial for war crimes as well?

edit on 2-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to amend style.

As with NASA and Apollo, it is very important to know the history before the event.

Benazir Bhutto (Sindhi: بينظير ڀٽو; Urdu: بینظیر بھٹو, pronounced [beːnəˈziːr ˈbʱʊʈʈoː]; 21 June 1953 – 27 December 2007) was a Pakistan-born politician, with Pakistani and Kurdish-Iranian origin, who chaired the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), a centre-left and the largest political party in Pakistan. Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state,[1] having twice been Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988–1990; 1993–1996). She was Pakistan's first and to date only female prime minister and was the eldest child of former Prime minister of Pakistan Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and former First Lady of Pakistan Mrs.Nusrat Bhutto, and was the wife of current President of Pakistan Mr. Asif Ali Zardari.

en.wikipedia.org...

On 2 November 2007, Bhutto participated in an interview with David Frost on Al Jazeera where she stated Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is also one of the men convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl. Frost never asked a follow up question regarding the claim that Bin Laden was dead.[80] Her interview could later be viewed on BBC's website, although it was initially distorted by the BBC as her claim about Bin Laden's death was taken out. But, once people discovered this and started posting evidence on YouTube, the BBC replaced its version with the version that was originally aired on Al Jazeera.[81]

So this has gone from speculation to stated fact by a well known politician of that area.
And conveniently she was killed.

So, with a history of lying to the public, how can we trust the media and the governments behind them? This is a reason why citizens should always be skeptical of their politicians' claims. Was Bhutto lying or is Obama?

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

reply to post by FoosM

Frost never asked a follow up question regarding the claim that Bin Laden was dead.

As usual, you highlight everything but the most important points. All of a sudden you seem to have Jarrah's thinking on absolutely everything on tap.

reply to post by FoosM

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

You have been presented with that evidence; why do you keep "forgetting" it, Jarrah?

reply to post by DJW001

I am not Phil Plait, Phillip Platt, Phillipe Platte, Phil Philpot, etc. On the other hand, since JW has been caught lying many, man, times there is no reason to believe he would not lie about his identity on this thread.

And we proved Phil Plait doesn't mind the odd lie either..
Guess that makes them even..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Frost never asked a follow up question regarding the claim that Bin Laden was dead.

As usual, you highlight everything but the most important points. All of a sudden you seem to have Jarrah's thinking on absolutely everything on tap.

Do tell what is important about what you just quoted?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

You have been presented with that evidence; why do you keep "forgetting" it, Jarrah?

You were working on that evidence Phil.
Did I miss your post?
Show me your findings!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

You have been presented with that evidence; why do you keep "forgetting" it, Jarrah?

To follow up... this is the last post you made on the subject:

I'm glad you brought that up; I've found literally thousands of NASA technical reports prior to 1968 dealing with the issue. Rather than do a sloppy cut-and-paste extravaganza, I'm taking my time reviewing them so I can explain the issues involved, thereby providing a proper exposition. Unfortunately I have not come across any memoranda outlining agency policy; this means that the policy must be deduced from the limits that are considered acceptable when a given report was prepared. For example, in one of the earliest analyses, dating from 1962, it is clear from the levels of recommended shielding that their ALAP was zero, much like Van Allen five years earlier. By 1965, a report that analyzed data from the Surveyor and Lunakhod probes made it clear that they were considering exposures of no more than a few days, and at higher levels than the typical Earth background radiation, There are also countless papers researching the effect of radiation on metal, plastic, "solid state circuits" and even paint. Since American sources quote Soviet sources, which in turn cite American sources, it is clear that both sides were reviewing each others' findings very closely, and that mutual confirmation was the order of the day.

So where is it?
Or is the new tactic to pretend evidence was presented after the thread has moved along a few pages?

reply to post by DJW001


Why didn't Frost respond with a question or a gasp or something? I never understood that!!

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by DJW001

 

Why didn't Frost respond with a question or a gasp or something? I never understood that!!

Yeah, especially after Nixon that should have been child's play.

And thats at the heart of the issue.
We have to rely on people like JW to ask the tough questions about Apollo missions.
These tough questions should have happened back during the claims of Apollo 10.

Certainly, JW is biased, however he and a few others is all we have! Unfortunately trained
reporters/investigators simply dont touch the subject. When they do, and they find issues, they
receive a backlash/get downplayed/are not taken seriously:

reply to post by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

You have been presented with that evidence; why do you keep "forgetting" it, Jarrah?

You were working on that evidence Phil.
Did I miss your post?
Show me your findings!

Again, thanks for the compliment, but I'm no Phil Plait. (I hadn't even heard of him until you started quoting him. I've since joined badastronomy.com thanks to your endorsement.) You did not miss my post, you ignored it... no, I tell a lie, you did not ignore it, you tantrummed because of it:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b5bf3ab094a.jpg[/atsimg]


This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick! It is obvious that both tables come from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using this data:

390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour

Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem. Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1% guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts.

Think about all this for a moment. Using a Czech intermediary, I have tracked down Jarrah White's original Russian data and used it to confirm a statement that Jarrah was trying to discredit. He has been caught in the act of perpetrating a lie.

By the way, this paper also debunks the "Russians didn't go to the Moon because they were afraid of radiation" myth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/631903213f91.jpg[/atsimg]


"Remark: Russian limits higher." What else would you expect from a country that didn't see the need for a containment vessel at Chernobyl, and that sent seamen into the Kursk's reactor wearing asbestos suits?

Returning to the issue at hand, I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply false. I submit that Jarrah White's "MoonFaker" videos are by any reasonable definition a HOAX, and humbly suggest that this thread be moved to the proper forum.

Remember?

Now, as for my current pet project, I am taking your challenge to be an historical documentation of NASA's understanding of and solutions to the "radiation problem." That is entirely different.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

This is why I ask for evidence prior to Apollo that humans could travel through the VABs and land on the moon. So far we haven't been presented with this information.

You have been presented with that evidence; why do you keep "forgetting" it, Jarrah?

Now, as for my current pet project, I am taking your challenge to be an historical documentation of NASA's understanding of and solutions to the "radiation problem." That is entirely different.

edit on 2-5-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

Like I said, you did not provide evidence.
Your still working on it.
And dont forget to include both belts, Proton & Electron.
LOL.

reply to post by DJW001


Nothing at 445klms ??

I thought you said the South Atlantic anomaly dipped lower than that.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

Nothing at 445klms ??

I thought you said the South Atlantic anomaly dipped lower than that.

A 0° orbit (directly around the equator) wouldn't intersect the SAA.

reply to post by FoosM

Like I said, you did not provide evidence.
Your still working on it.
And dont forget to include both belts, Proton & Electron.
LOL.

The tables in this paper are based on Kovalev's research from 1964:
Radiation Safety During Space Flights, 1964

reply to post by nataylor


Every craft (ISS,Shuttles) seem to go through the SAA so what's your point??

reply to post by DJW001

The tables in this paper are based on Kovalev's research from 1964:
Radiation Safety During Space Flights, 1964

Surely you have something a little more up to date than 46 years...

reply to post by backinblack

Every craft (ISS,Shuttles) seem to go through the SAA so what's your point??

That's because very few craft are launched from the equator. What's your point?

reply to post by backinblack

Surely you have something a little more up to date than 46 years...

Pay attention, Black. FoosM's challenge was to specifically find a source prior to Apollo. Much, much more is known now.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Every craft (ISS,Shuttles) seem to go through the SAA so what's your point??

That's because very few craft are launched from the equator. What's your point?

My point is your table said zero radiation at 445klms..
We know they go through the SAA multiple times a day so how can it be zero ??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

Every craft (ISS,Shuttles) seem to go through the SAA so what's your point??

I was explaining why that table lists a dose of 0 for a 0° orbit at 445 km. You seemed to think the SAA would contribute to the dose. I was pointing out that such an orbit would not go through the SAA.