Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

I want a yes or no answer. Why do you need additional variables (like oxygen in brain) to answer such a simple question?

Is water deadly?

Originally posted by debunky
I want a yes or no answer. Why do you need additional variables (like oxygen in brain) to answer such a simple question?

Is water deadly?

Don't be such a dimwit...My smart ass answer...answers your dumb ass question.

The lack of oxygenated blood to the brain is deadly...

Do you get it yet?

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1


YOU cant prove what I said is wrong so you post a statement that MEANS NOTHING.

As you seem unable to find out things for yourself here is a DUMMIES guide to PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE MOON.

Now even YOU should be able to understand this.

home.hiwaay.net...


Albedo 0.12 moon and 0.3 earth iirc

If YOU actually read my post I said Astronauts could see stars if they give their eyes time to adjust.

Someone in LEO has more time to do that than Astronauts with limited surface time and lots to do in that time.

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

Originally posted by debunky
I want a yes or no answer. Why do you need additional variables (like oxygen in brain) to answer such a simple question?

Is water deadly?

Don't be such a dimwit...My smart ass answer...answers your dumb ass question.

The lack of oxygenated blood to the brain is deadly...

Do you get it yet?

Radiation doesnt kill you either. Its the tissue damage that does. So is Radiation deadly? Is Water? Yes or No?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

 

YOU cant prove what I said is wrong so you post a statement that MEANS NOTHING.

As you seem unable to find out things for yourself here is a DUMMIES guide to PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE MOON.

Now even YOU should be able to understand this.

home.hiwaay.net...


Albedo 0.12 moon and 0.3 earth iirc

If YOU actually read my post I said Astronauts could see stars if they give their eyes time to adjust.

Someone in LEO has more time to do that than Astronauts with limited surface time and lots to do in that time.

And the DAYS in space, on a quarter of a million mile journey? No time to peer out and describe the stars to us eh?

So, the astronauts could have seen the stars from the moon okay then eh? Why the odd statements from Armstrong and Collins then eh? Suppose they were too tired, picking up all those rocks to gaze upward for a moment or two? And the lack of NASA's scientists to think about placing a photographic telescope on the moon, instead of heavy ole jeeps, isn't suspect one single bit eh?

Now, before you hurt yourself trying to come up with more excuses, why don't you engage that critical thinking part of your brain, and see through the fraud already?

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

Originally posted by debunky
I want a yes or no answer. Why do you need additional variables (like oxygen in brain) to answer such a simple question?

Is water deadly?

Don't be such a dimwit...My smart ass answer...answers your dumb ass question.

The lack of oxygenated blood to the brain is deadly...

Do you get it yet?

Radiation doesnt kill you either. Its the tissue damage that does. So is Radiation deadly? Is Water? Yes or No?

source

Prompt Effects

High doses delivered to the whole body of healthy adults within short periods of time can produce effects such as blood component changes, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and death. These effects will develop within hours, days or weeks, depending on the size of the dose. The larger the dose, the sooner a given effect will occur.

There goes your long period of time to be deadly excuse...right out the window...

Low dose radiation has been known to slowly destroy the nerves in the body....Over a period of around twenty years. It's been over overy forty years since those clowns were supposedly subjected to KILLER electrons, gamma rays, secondary neutron radiation, solar particles from the constant solar wind, solar flares, HUNDREDS OF THEM...including the DEADLY MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, and your ignorant enough to believe their health is indicative of such exposure.

Furthermore, don't you find it rather unbelievable that NASA hasn't insisted these MOONWALKERS, be studied, and documented for the effects of having been subjected to all that radiation.

Let's see those studies...

Your lack of critical thinking is completely dumbfounding!

Why do I have to do all the googling for you while you can't answer a simple question?

Lovell, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "There's been a lot of discussion concerning what you can see through the scanning telescope as far as recognizing stars and constellations. During the early part of the flight I could not see anything through the scanning telescope that I could recognize, for instance - a constellation. I could see several stars, but I couldn't pinpoint them because I didn't know the surrounding stars.

history.nasa.gov...

Whats the matter? Question too hard for you?
Maybe some light reading would help?
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1


One little telescope on the Moon would not have been of any benefit the rover allowed the Astronauts to get about YOUR little scope would not have brought anything new to the table WOULD IT?

NO

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

 

One little telescope on the Moon would not have been of any benefit the rover allowed the Astronauts to get about YOUR little scope would not have brought anything new to the table WOULD IT?

NO

You are farging kidding me right? An unobstructed view/photographs of stars from the lunar surface is of no benefit...I guess all that money they spent on the Hubble was just a waste of taxpayer money then eh? Really, where do you guys get your thought processes from? A vat of lard outside of Phil Plaits place?

Originally posted by debunky
Why do I have to do all the googling for you while you can't answer a simple question?

Lovell, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "There's been a lot of discussion concerning what you can see through the scanning telescope as far as recognizing stars and constellations. During the early part of the flight I could not see anything through the scanning telescope that I could recognize, for instance - a constellation. I could see several stars, but I couldn't pinpoint them because I didn't know the surrounding stars.

history.nasa.gov...

Whats the matter? Question too hard for you?
Maybe some light reading would help?
en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus christ in a chicken basket...This post was so laughable, I nearly ejected pepsi from my nasal passages...

All they had to do, was look out of one of the windows to see the damn stars. You guys are exasperating...seriously...Is that the end game for you guys. Write stupid crap until those who are capable of thinking critically and with reason get fed up with your dopey games and go away?

I've hit the nail square on the damn head haven't I?

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

Originally posted by debunky
I want a yes or no answer. Why do you need additional variables (like oxygen in brain) to answer such a simple question?

Is water deadly?

Don't be such a dimwit...My smart ass answer...answers your dumb ass question.

The lack of oxygenated blood to the brain is deadly...

Do you get it yet?

Radiation doesnt kill you either. Its the tissue damage that does. So is Radiation deadly? Is Water? Yes or No?

source

Prompt Effects
High doses delivered These effects will develop within hours, days or weeks, depending on the size of the dose. The larger the dose, the sooner a given effect will occur.

Studies:
scholar.google.at...

Is water deadly?

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
You are farging kidding me right? An unobstructed view/photographs of stars from the lunar surface is of no benefit...I guess all that money they spent on the Hubble was just a waste of taxpayer money then eh? Really, where do you guys get your thought processes from? A vat of lard outside of Phil Plaits place?

I always wonder if the likes of you are for real or just posting for a laugh. Doesn't the fact that Hubble isn't on the moon ring a bell? Maybe it is a hell lot easier to get a telescope in orbit instead of landing it on the moon and install it there?

I really don't get why some people are so attracted to the absurd, willingly. Religious people have the excuse of being indoctrinated, but people why deny the moon landings don't really have an excuse. What is wrong with these people?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
You are farging kidding me right? An unobstructed view/photographs of stars from the lunar surface is of no benefit...I guess all that money they spent on the Hubble was just a waste of taxpayer money then eh? Really, where do you guys get your thought processes from? A vat of lard outside of Phil Plaits place?

I always wonder if the likes of you are for real or just posting for a laugh. Doesn't the fact that Hubble isn't on the moon ring a bell? Maybe it is a hell lot easier to get a telescope in orbit instead of landing it on the moon and install it there?

I really don't get why some people are so attracted to the absurd, willingly. Religious people have the excuse of being indoctrinated, but people why deny the moon landings don't really have an excuse. What is wrong with these people?

These people as you call them, have the capacity for intelligent, critical thought. The moronic blathers, double-speak, and moronic question, while avoiding the obvious, and common sense, is the tactic of the Apollo junky.

Anyone with a smidge of knowledge about the truly deadly environment of space, laughs freely at the idea of Apollo as anything but a huge joke played on the general populace.

Go ask a space physicist for a confidential thought on Apollo, and you'll see the smirk immediately. I've seen it several times, along with choice words I was kindly asked to keep to my damn self.

And no, I will not name them. Their confidence means a great deal more to me than entertaining the lot of you. Plus their grants mean a great deal to them as well.

As entertaining as watching you peeps writhe, and conjure up stupid excuses has been this morning, I must be off to do those mundane things life conjures up to keep me busy.

Happy Apollo Fairy Tale dreams to you all!

All right, If you cant answer my simple yes or no question, lets try fill in the blank:

According to this
www.hps.org...

Actual radiation dose measurements of Apollo crews measured by onboard dosimetry were, on average, 12 mSv.

This value is obviously wrong. In reality it would be _______

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1


WOW!!! I just got done watching 13 episodes of Jarrah White's video MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly!!

WOW!!! Thx you!!

Jarrah definately nails the data and referances every single statement, that I can see!!!

I did take a look at your made vid and it all confirms that there WAS a solar flare DURING an Apollo launch; and backed up by NASA as well..

I only got through the 13 episodes of the series .. but.. I got enough to solidify my conclusions.

A few of the parts JW leaves out
One does wonder why:

To die, you'd need to absorb, suddenly, 300 rem or more. The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta. Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972. It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire. "A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since. Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

And

An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.

science.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by CHRLZ
how the hell are they going to flex their knees enough to jump far anyway, in those bulky suits?

Seems their knees bend just fine. (see below video). What concerns me is this ...

If people are saying their 300 pound weight stopped them doing the massive jumps they should have done in 1/6 gravity .. fair enough.

But if that same 300 pounds can suddenly disappear .. and almost look weightless when they fall over .. what the ?

Originally posted by debunky
A few of the parts JW leaves out
One does wonder why:

To die, you'd need to absorb, suddenly, 300 rem or more. The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta. Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972. It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire. "A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since. Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

And

An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.

science.nasa.gov...

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

OK, ppk55, It's time your tactics were displayed for all. Readers may recall that several pages ago, ppk55 made the allegation that I had made a number of promises that he claimed were unfulfilled.

You may also recall that I only had time to look at the very first one, and showed that he was LYING on that one. I'll repeat that below, so this is a full response to his post. Unlike ppk55, I won't be leaving bits out in order to mislead.

But I'd like to make a very important point here, before I begin. PPK55 did NOT choose any statements or claims from me about the topic. NOT ONE. You would think, if he was serious about debating the topic, he would want to debate the TOPICs themselves. But no, he wants to (try to) show that I don't do what I promise. A personal attack.

Did he succeed? Let's look at the quotes, and see how many of them are correct:

I'll be giving examples later that show quite the reverse

(This is the one I proved to be a LIE earlier, but again..)
Here is where I did exactly that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(that post is a full examination of one of JW's videos, and cites several sections that are without supporting documentation.)

That's 1 of 1 claims proven FALSE.

I will be back later to discuss Exuberant's Frank Byrne 'quote'..

Here's where I did that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
pointing out that the interviewee was quite drunk when interviewed, and that the interview had been deliberately tampered with to exclude the question he was asked - there is nothing in his statement that links it to Apollo.

That's 2 of 2 claims proven FALSE.

I'll look at that video when I get a chance, but it may not be for a day or two. I gotta work...
[and]
Be back later with a long, boring (but accurate) review...
[and]
So I'll hold back on my review for a while, but I'm afraid it's not going to be very positive
[and]
But I'll wait a while before addressing them in detail

These were ALL referring to the JW video that included his arts teacher (Jenny Heller) pretending to be a scientist, to help Jarrah's school project. Do we need to quote her email again?....
Here's where I began dealing with it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here's where I helped bust it *wide open*:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's 6 of 6 claims proven FALSE.

But just remember, I WILL be posting a summary of all your claims and refusals to debate later. Looking forward to that.
[and]
I'll be doing a summary of your contributions to this thread later. Are you looking forward to that? I certainly am.
[and]
I'll get back to that later when I summarise his work on this thread.
[and]
I will, however, return a little later to summarise the lies, misinfirmation and unanswered questions [that these folk have left behind, hoping no-one would notice.]

(Ya accidentally left the bolded bit out... dunno why... )
I'll concede I haven't done much on *you* yet, ppk55, but I am still waiting for the thread to 'die', and imo it hasn't done that yet. At that point, I'll be posting summaries of a few notables...
I have already done a quick summary of much of Exuberant1s stuff, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks for giving me an excuse to repost it... Exuberant1 refused to answer anything in that post, and then put me on 'ignore'.
And then there's this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
that raises several issues that are still unresolved - the deniers responsible have not responded, apart from a few from dragnet53, to his credit..

So I'll give you ONE of those.

That's 9 of 10 claims proven FALSE.
(The tenth will become false later...)

Anyway, before I go through that one in GREAT detail with links, independent references and proof at every step[, would you like to change your mind and maybe pick something a little more worthy].

That's from:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I've put back what you EDITED out, as it shows I was asking FoosM to pick a topic. He didn't.

That's 10 of 11 claims proven false.

I urge you to see my next post, folks...

This one beggars belief. HERE (again):
www.abovetopsecret.com...
is that *very next post*, and it was the one that busted Jarrah's 'perspective expert' as an art teacher with no photography experience, playing a game that was revealed in her own email...

That's 11 of 12 claims proven FALSE.

I will be making that point VERY LOUDLY when I come back later...

This one was about FoosM and his continuing habit of not citing images. Frankly, I can no longer be bothered with his inane postings.
So I'll happily concede that one.

That's 11 of 13 claims proven false.

Now, about masterp... be back shortly...

Here's where I returned and posted a dissection of masterp's posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And may I recommend that link for those who wish to start learning about what photogrammetry *can't* do..

That's 12 of 14 claims proven false.

I may go look for it tomorrow

That was only a day or so ago, about thermodynamic equations - are you going to debate this topic? If not, then I'm not going to any effort.
Even though it was less than 2 days ago, I'll still concede it.

That's 12 of 15 claims proven false.

I'll be posting a series of statements, broken up over a number of posts
[and]
I will cover this later on as I dissect the radiation issues

Umm, haven't you been following my step-by-step radiation posts? So far I have posted these statements and questions to be answered:

1. Some Apollo deniers claim that the radiation encountered during the missions would have either seriously affected or killed the astronauts.

2. What types and amounts of radiation would the astronauts have encountered, at what times during the mission/s?

and

3. What types and amounts of radiation of the types defined above, would cause serious harm or death to a human?

Do you have anything to add before I proceed to the next step? I'm sure it will go better with your sort of expertise..



So, the final total? - 14 of 17 claims PROVEN FALSE. In other words, on average, PPK55's post contains 82% FALSEHOODS.

Is that your typical average? Care to apologise for any of it, or explain why you wanted to mislead?


PS - a quick note to mods - yes, this post gets rather personal, but I believe I am entitled to defend myself against lies. But feel free to delete this ALONG WITH ppk55's highly defamatory post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fair's fair...


Anyway, I'll get back to the radiation later. I see that unforgiven has not raised any objections yet, so I have to assume he concedes and agrees with everything I've said so far... It hasn't got very interesting yet, but it will - the groundwork is being laid, slowly but surely.

You can quote me on that too, ppk.

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1




Are you really trying hard to be dumb NO telescope the Astronauts could have taken would have given better images than the largest telescope on earth at the time even allowing for no atmosphere.

Largest at the time was 200" (5.1m)Hale Telescope Hubble has a 2.4 m mirror so your being a bit stupid trying to compare what the astronauts could have taken with the Hubble or the largest on earth at the time.