Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Hi and welcome pezza.

Maybe you can help with this query from Jarrah's video
'Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly part 16'. I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

I'm most interested in Eleanor Blakely's comments that particles fragment when they hit aluminium shielding, resulting in more particles inside than outside.



I'm quite interested in how they survived the radiation in space.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Good to have pro's on board. We better keep the discussion in the stuff that was available in the 60's thought.

going by the depth of knowledge shown by a few contributers to this thread, it wouldnt surprise me if they were subject matter experts in their chosen fields. Probably too modest to be upfront about it? Im not even sure if it is forum ettiquete to reveal your academic pedigree/background. I dont post all that often so i wouldnt know. Im just being up front to hopefully bring closure to this debate, e.g. If the mods are prepared to accept an assessment of the "best evidence" by a subject matter expert then they could be in a position to close the thread, move to HOAX or continue as is in the interest of revealing NASA for the fraud that it is.

But continuing the debate as is without conditions for closure may turn into an exercise of who will tire out first. To be honest, i thought we would have reached this point in the single digits of pages given the content of the very first youtube vid in wwu77s opening post

Originally posted by ppk55
Hi and welcome pezza.

Maybe you can help with this query from Jarrah's video
'Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly part 16'. I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

I'm most interested in Eleanor Blakely's comments that particles fragment when they hit aluminium shielding, resulting in more particles inside than outside.


I'm quite interested in how they survived the radiation in space.

Sure, happy to provide some insight here. Because i am on an iphone i cant view the vid just yet. Can you post a summary of those questions here? I need some context on what these particles are, size, composition etc.

Originally posted by ppk55
I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

Nice marketing, ppk55, from Sydney, Australia - right where Jarrah lives...

Not that I would draw any unkind conclusions from that, oh no. I'm just fascinated by 'coincidences'.

Getting back on topic, how about you finish PREVIOUS claims before we let you wriggle onto the next one?

WHEN will you be posting those videos of slow motion effects, that you referred to here?

Given you (wrongly) criticise others for not doing what they say they will, this seems very hypocritical.

If you don't have the videos, please say so, and withdraw the claim until you can provide them.


PS - and remember that number, 2.46, 2.46, 2.46...

(sorry, that's an in-joke.. I may explain later..)

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by ppk55
I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

Nice marketing, ppk55, from Sydney, Australia - right where Jarrah lives...

i think the viewer retention rate on some of those JW multi part video series is something like 5-10%(by the time they get to the last part in a series). Its pretty much the same retention rate pre this ATS Thread. So i dont think the marketing is working.

I think a retention rate of >50% would indicate that the majority of viewers found the content valuable enough to endure the whole series, of course assuming that the normal viewing pattern is to start at part 1 and watch all the subsequent parts

If i was tasked with having to generate video content for the purpose of earning revenue through youtube (and the payment model was $0.0x per view) then the way i would approach it would be to start with a killer opening video. Then i would have subsequent parts with content that maximised retention. I would then aggresively market part 1 in the series to sites like ATS. If the video theme happened to be science related i would maximise my retention by presenting high quality scientific content in the filler parts.

An alternate strategy would be to focus efforts on marketing of the filler parts (as opposed to the science) but in the long run this would be terribly inefficient and you run the risk of getting exposed as fluff. However, if you had enough cheap labour it could possibly work.

Thats my take on earning money by youtube with pseudoscience


[edit on 6-6-2010 by pezza]

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by ppk55
Hi and welcome pezza.

Maybe you can help with this query from Jarrah's video
'Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly part 16'. I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

I'm most interested in Eleanor Blakely's comments that particles fragment when they hit aluminium shielding, resulting in more particles inside than outside.


I'm quite interested in how they survived the radiation in space.

Sure, happy to provide some insight here. Because i am on an iphone i cant view the vid just yet. Can you post a summary of those questions here? I need some context on what these particles are, size, composition etc.

The video is about radiation, not regolith particles.

I'll summarize, the video (purposely?):

-confuses short-term radiation exposure (such as Apollo) with long term exposure (such as a trip to Mars).

-confuses particle and wave radiation.

-confuses ionizing with non-ionizing radiation.

-confuses normal background cosmic radiation with (very rare) high-energy solar flares.

-again, I'm sure others will add further lies found in the video.

The maker of the video constantly interchages accurate quotes from people regarding one issue and confounds it with something completely different. And given the general public's ignorance regarding radiation, the video is difficult to rebut easily.

Originally posted by ppk55

I'm quite interested in how they survived the radiation in space.

ppk, do you believe the "experts" that Jarrah quotes in this video?

And if you do, why?

Originally posted by Tomblvd
The video is about radiation, not regolith particles.

I'll summarize, the video (purposely?):

-confuses short-term radiation exposure (such as Apollo) with long term exposure (such as a trip to Mars).

-confuses particle and wave radiation.

-confuses ionizing with non-ionizing radiation.

-confuses normal background cosmic radiation with (very rare) high-energy solar flares.

-again, I'm sure others will add further lies found in the video.

The maker of the video constantly interchages accurate quotes from people regarding one issue and confounds it with something completely different. And given the general public's ignorance regarding radiation, the video is difficult to rebut easily.

You're a stronger man than I, Tom, for watching more of that stuff.

Can you tell me (as ppk55 clearly is unable to), what the Eleanor Blakely bit was about - was she directly quoted, and was there a source? Don't re-watch it (I really should do that myself..*) I'm just thinking it might have been something.. er.. memorable.

I'd like to chase it up, as JW has a bit of a 'record' when he 'quotes'. I'd like to see if he remains consistent..


* - actually, no, it is up to ppk55 to quote the item, if he is wanting an actual debate, rather that just spamming this stuff. It's quite sad that these posters are unable to express themselves in their own words. What has the education system become?

Originally posted by CHRLZ


You're a stronger man than I, Tom, for watching more of that stuff.


Can you tell me (as ppk55 clearly is unable to), what the Eleanor Blakely bit was about - was she directly quoted, and was there a source? Don't re-watch it (I really should do that myself..*) I'm just thinking it might have been something.. er.. memorable.

I'd like to chase it up, as JW has a bit of a 'record' when he 'quotes'. I'd like to see if he remains consistent..

* - actually, no, it is up to ppk55 to quote the item, if he is wanting an actual debate, rather that just spamming this stuff. It's quite sad that these posters are unable to express themselves in their own words. What has the education system become?

I'll do it because you know damn well pkk will never try to explain what his point is. He obviously knows very little about radiation.

VERY little.

Anyway, it's typical Jarrah. The experts he quotes are all discussing the problems associated with radiation shielding for a trip to mars After all this time, JW STILL doesn't understand that time of exposure is an important part of the radiation danger. Interestingly enough, she discusses a talk with an apollo astronaut as part of her evidence, so she obviously believes we went to the moon.

Yet another JW screwup.

Originally posted by debunkyFilm was expensive? Thank you very much for giving me the first laugh of today

Think I'll step in here and take responsibility for that comment. What I was trying to say was that if you're confident of your exposure, bracketing is wasteful in terms of triple exposures of each shot, as well as the additional time for shooting and a lot more mag changes.

So in terms of time and energy for mostly unnecessary shots, it is kinda expensive.

Kinda? Or should I keep digging myself out?

reply to post by torch2k


Ahhhh gotcha.
Expensive in terms of effort & work, not in money.
(and if you factor in delivery costs, film on the moon is *very* expensive)

Just addressing the radiation part of this debate....
.
Was all Luck.

The Luck of Apollo
* The timing of the Apollo Moon Missions compared to the occurance of solar proton events

.
Showing ALL (REM) levels for apollo missions 7-17
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab49dd73d091.jpg[/atsimg]
The only danger was "Between" mission 16 and 17.
.

The solar storm of August 1972 is legendary at NASA because it occurred in between two Apollo missions: the crew of Apollo 16 had returned to Earth in April and the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon landing in December.

.

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.

..Sources - www.nasa.gov... .. and .. www.minimagnetospheres.org/

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
Just addressing the radiation part of this debate....
.
Was all Luck.

The Luck of Apollo
* The timing of the Apollo Moon Missions compared to the occurance of solar proton events

.
Showing ALL (REM) levels for apollo missions 7-17

The only danger was "Between" mission 16 and 17.
.

You'll get quite a snort of derision from the hoax believers from that comment. They just can't understand how astronauts (or anyone, for that matter), would be willing to risk their lives to go to the moon. When you look at all the things that could go wrong on a single mission, a fatal solar event was pretty low on the "oh #!" list.

As I've said before, all of the early Apollo astronauts were test pilots. Not a profession with a long life-expectancy.

So... in my opinion,
since NASA WAS at fault for the deaths of three astronauts (ON EARTH, not even in space?)... and still took the chance of luck
with radiation on future missions Blows my mind!!!
..
..
The radiation shielding is measured in units of areal density - or grams per centimeter-squared.
Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.
A typical space suit, has only 0.25 g/cm2!
.
source..www.nasa.gov...
..
NASA had balls to send them up, and astronauts had balls for steppin out of the module!

EDIT: Not aimed at you ^^^^

It's a good job some people don't have this wimpy opinion. Otherwise we would never have developed any form of flight, wouldn't explore deep underwater, etc.
Base jumpers can get killed easily but still do it too don't they?
There's the nutter skydiver from the edge of space in a special suit... All very risky, but some people, as I said, arn't wimps and are more than happy to take risks for either personal enjoyment or to further technology and achievements.
I guess people who climb mountains are a hoax, because it's been proven through the number of fatalities how dangerous it is and let's face it, what's the point huh? There are plenty of activites and jobs being taken part in every day by countless people around the world, most equally or maybe even more dangerous statistically than the moon missions. Let's face it, how you die is irrelevant , it's the statistical chance of being killed that's significant. Yet they still continue.

'It was too dangerous' has to be one of the dumbest, most grasping at straws reasons out there Sort it out.

Edit to change spelling and self moderated by removing an un-necessary insult.

Edit to clarify I am not talking directly to poster above me

[edit on 7-6-2010 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
So... in my opinion,
since NASA WAS at fault for the deaths of three astronauts (ON EARTH, not even in space?)... and still took the chance of luck
with radiation on future missions Blows my mind!!!
..
..
The radiation shielding is measured in units of areal density - or grams per centimeter-squared.
Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.
A typical space suit, has only 0.25 g/cm2!
.
source..www.nasa.gov...
..
NASA had balls to send them up, and astronauts had balls for steppin out of the module!

To be fair, it's worth posting the entire quote - I've highlighted a few key words..:

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.

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," according to Cucinotta. 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 having a headache.

In other words even in a worst case scenario where a record-breaking solar flare gave absolutely no warning - by aborting the mission, returning to the already-primed-for-launch LM, and docking with the CM the astronauts would have been able to return to almost complete safety within about an hour. Once in the CM, it could easily be oriented to put all of its structure between the astronauts and the sun for the trip home, except for the short periods where they needed to use the main engine for maneuvers..

Anyway, I'll be elaborating on this later as my 'little' radiation analysis proceeds. I'm pausing it for while to allow any brave apollo deniers to object... there hasn't been a peep out of them so far. I'm not sure if they yet realise that it will soon be too late, and the entire topic will be covered!

Anyway, I'm in no hurry...

Thanks for the links, by the way, kyleplatinum - I hadn't seen that little graph before.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Just to keep the thread alive, I'd like to toss in a couple of facts now..

It may not seem like it, but they are important to the next steps in the radiation analysis..

Here they are:

1. At the time of Apollo 11, the North GEO-Magnetic Pole (that's NOT the North Magnetic Pole, by the way..) was located at approximately 79°N, 70°W.

2. The level of proton-flux in the Van Allen Belts (VAB) has been extensively mapped and for, say, the Apollo 11 mission, it is reasonably represented by the "AP-8-MIN" modelling methodology.

I plan to use the accepted values/mapping for proton flux provided by the published AP-8-MIN graphs. (see point 3) Eg, this sort of thing..




3. To keep it simple (and as the information given there is actually quite good) I'll be using the basic VAB information that is referenced here, on Wiki. That page contains a reasonable, not-too-technical explanation of the VAB's for anyone who wishes to follow along later.

So, over to the deniers - do you dispute those facts and figures I will be using? - if so, please provide better references...

There is a little part of Apollo 11 I'm unsure of. The video doesn't exist from the formal sources, however if you look around you can find it. It's even referenced in the apollo transcripts.

The part that's featured is the astronauts dropping their PLSS equipment (backpacks) from the lander to the moons surface before they blasted off. They had to drop this equipment apparently to save weight. Yes, they just dropped them unceremoniously from the lander to the moons surface. (the video exists, just look for it)

Here's the transcript history.nasa.gov...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89743f277149.jpg[/atsimg]

This is the part that I don't get. It seems in the space of 8 minutes they've depressurized the lander, dropped the PLSS's then 'repressed'. Doesn't that seem like an awfully short time frame to do this ?

One thing that strikes me is the 'equipment jettison' was never discussed before this conversation. Don't you think a first time procedure like this would be discussed in detail before it occurred.

Yes, this was Apollo 11, and dumping their PLSS equipment was a first time event. However the best it was referenced to was

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d681ce2d984.jpg[/atsimg]

wtf?

edit again: and WOW, in those 8 minutes, someone has rushed over and told them they've recorded seismic events from their PLSS's hitting the ground. Yeah right.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


I don't see why this is a question, at all.

Am unable to download that transcript .pdf right now (hotel computer) to view it myself, but.....

YOU could simply read through the OTHER EVA transcripts from other missions to see what the normal LM repress time was.

Considering it wasn't a very large volume, and they only maintained it at about ~4 psi??? Should be fairly quick.

I would think pumping OUT the O2 into storage tanks would take longer...but releasing a valve to allow the O2 (compressed in storage) back into the living area? Pretty rapid.

Am trying to search LM Operations Manuals online for details of the procedure for depress/repress, no luck yet....

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

OK...not having researched, before, the exact mechanisms and methods used for the LM, and EVA depress/repress procedures, I had assumed there was a need to keep as much O2 as possible, therefore pump it into a stoarge tank, for depress...BUT, I did find some info on this form JREF.

To Keep It Simple (Stupid)--- the 'KISS' concept --- they merely carried extra O2 in tanks, stored both in the descent module, and ascent module. Obviously, they'd use up everything in the descent module first, since it would be left behind.

The transcript (page 370, or thereabouts) describes the initial depress, prior to EVA.

Here is the JREF post:

Values
Initial O2 Loading
The LM contained three oxygen tanks in the two stages. The descent stage contained one tank, which initially held 48.2 lbm of oxygen. The ascent stage contained two tanks, each containing 2.5 lbm of oxygen (Apollo 11 Mission Report, page 9-34, or page 162 in the PDF). This is a total of 53.2 lbm.
The History of Manned Spaceflight lists standard LM oxygen loading as 21.7 kg (47.8 lbm) in the descent stage, and 1.1 kg (2.4 lbm) in the ascent stage. Given rounding errors and that this was the standard values across all missions, these values are sufficiently close.

Consumption of O2
There were three main items that consumed the oxygen:
Astronaut respiration.
Cabin depressurizations (or more precisely, repressurizations after a depressurization).
Cabin leaks.
In his initial post, Dr. Greening uses a baseline of 0.05 lbm/hr for astronaut respiration. This agrees with estimates made on the ApolloHoax board. I will accept this for the purposes of these calculations.

For cabin depressurizations, there were two during the stay on the surface. The first was at the start of the EVA; the second was prior to lift-off to jettison unwanted materials. According to the ECS Quick Reference Data, each subsequent repressurization required 6.6 lbm of oxygen, for a total of 13.2 lbm (note, however, that this does not specify if it applied specifically to the Apollo 11 LM, or is a generic average across all LMs). Dr. Greening estimated 12 lbm, which is acceptably close.

For cabin leaks, there are actually two values. The nominal value – which is the design target – was 0.2 lbm/hr. Post mission, however, it was found that the Apollo 11 LM had an actual leak rate of 0.05 lbm/hr (Apollo 11 Mission Report, page 9-33; page 161 in the PDF). Dr. Greening uses the former rate, from page 102 of The NASA Mission Reports. Volume One: Apollo 11, (Robert Godwin, ed., Apogee Books, 1999). The value therein is apparently taken from the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Press Kit, page 186 (or page 190 of the PDF). In the latter, it is clearly marked as the nominal value.
As such, the actual value must be used when comparing expected oxygen consumption to actual values.

forums.randi.org...




[edit on 7 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ppk55


This is the part that I don't get. It seems in the space of 8 minutes they've depressurized the lander, dropped the PLSS's then 'repressed'. Doesn't that seem like an awfully short time frame to do this ?

How do you get to the conclusion that 8 minutes was not long enough?