Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Here's a study that's actually online, so it can be checked:

Heavy ions light flashes and brain functions: recent observations at accelerators and in spaceflight

Abstract. Interactions between ionizing radiation in space and brain functions, and the related risk assessments, are among the major concerns when programming long permanence in space, especially when outside the protective shield of the Earth's magnetosphere. The light flashes (LF) observed by astronauts in space, mostly when dark adapted, are an example of these interactions; investigations in space and on the ground showed that these effects can originate with the action of ionizing radiation in the eye. Recent findings from ALTEA, an interdisciplinary and multiapproach program devoted to the study of different aspects of the radiation–brain functions interaction, are presented in this paper. These include: (i) study of radiation passing through the astronauts' eyes in the International Space Station (approx20 ions min–1, excluding H and fast and very slow He), measured in conjunction with reporting of the perception of LF; (ii) preliminary electrophysiological evidence of these events in astronauts and in patients during heavy ion therapy; and (iii) in vitro results showing the radiation driven activation of rhodopsin at the start of the phototransduction cascade in the process of vision. These results are in agreement with our previous work on mice. A brief but complete summary of the earlier works is also reported to permit a discussion of the results.

Conclusion

The large variability of the subjective LF reports of the astronauts seems unlikely to be entirely explained by differences in radiation kind and fluences (due to altitude, latitude and vessel shielding), providing strong hints toward the coexistence of many routes to LF generation, and for considering physiological (and psychological) parameters as important co-causes. This should be also taken into account when interpreting the low LF rate measured in ALTEA, which might be only partly explained by the better shielding of the ISS–USLab and by the possible non complete dark adaption as suggested by one of the astronauts.

You lose again Foos.

Originally posted by FoosM

Fine, then you must know more about it than 'Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine'

"However, eight respondents mentioned an increase in LF rate (n = 3), intensity (n = 1), or both (n = 4) in the SAA. Three respondents thought the LF frequency increased at high latitudes and two that both the LF frequency and the intensity increased near the poles,"

So, who should I believe you or them?

I forgot to ask for a link to this study, or, in lieu of that, a link to the site where you got it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Ahhhh...young grasshopper....you make it so easy....

You believe that that the information provided supports each other, but if that was the case, then we wouldn't have SO MANY videos and books etc claiming Apollo as a hoax.

"SO MANY" videos and books, eh? Guess what? THEY ALL REPEAT THE SAME TIRED NONSENSE!!!

Same for Apollo literature. Most is repeated nonsense. And by that I mean the
idea that we landed on the moon, and not the science behind the idea to land on the moon.

Has Apollo offered anything new since the seventies?
It's just a rehash of the missions. Or its info gets compared to new info in research papers. Like finding water on the moon.

Tell you the truth, if it weren't for people who have claimed Apollo was a hoax, Apollo barely would be discussed. Like the Wright Bros. Its actually these debates that has had both sides of the argument go and learn more about what happened in the 60's and 70's.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Fine, then you must know more about it than 'Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine'

"However, eight respondents mentioned an increase in LF rate (n = 3), intensity (n = 1), or both (n = 4) in the SAA. Three respondents thought the LF frequency increased at high latitudes and two that both the LF frequency and the intensity increased near the poles,"

So, who should I believe you or them?

I forgot to ask for a link to this study, or, in lieu of that, a link to the site where you got it.

www.ingentaconnect.com...;jsessionid=1ayxgdtu23xyp.alexandra?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fasma%2fasem%2f2006%2f00000077%2f00000004%2fart00 012&mimetype=text%2fhtml

search phosphenes

[edit on 9-6-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I guess you dont get it.
Those flashes the astronauts claimed to have witnessed, could have happened
in LEO. So if you can see flashes in LEO, then all the apollo astros should have had worse problems going through the belts.

No, I think you don't get it. The flashes are caused by cosmic rays, which are not affected by the magnetosphere. The frequency of the phenomenon would be about the same anywhere in space. Furthermore, recent research suggests that it may be caused by interactions with the visual cortex, not the eye:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Naturally, the phenomenon would be most noticeable when the visual cortex was less stimulated, eg; in the dark. When the astronauts' attention was directed towards tasks in full light, they would be less prone to notice minor events of that type.

also:

The flux (flow rate) of cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere is modulated (varied) by two processes; the sun’s solar wind and

the Earth's magnetic field.

The Solar wind is expanding magnetized plasma generated by the sun, which has the effect of decelerating the incoming particles, as well as excluding some of the particles with energies below about 1 GeV. The amount of solar wind is not constant due to changes in solar activity, for instance over its regular eleven-year cycle. Hence the level of modulation varies in anticorrelation with solar activity.

*Also the Earth's magnetic field deflects some of the cosmic rays, giving rise to the observation that the intensity of cosmic radiation is dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle. *

The cosmic flux varies from eastern and western directions due to the polarity of the Earth's geomagnetic field and the positive charge dominance in primary cosmic rays. (This is called the "east-west effect"). The cosmic ray intensity at the Equator is lower than at the poles as the geomagnetic cutoff value is greatest at the equator. This is because charged particles tend to move in the direction of field lines and not across them, so that they are concentrated in the polar regions (where field lines are closest together). This is the reason the auroras occur at the poles, since the field lines curve down towards the Earth’s surface there. Finally, the longitude dependence arises from the fact that the geomagnetic dipole axis is not parallel to the Earth's rotation axis.

This modulation which describes the change in the interstellar intensities of cosmic rays as they propagate in the heliosphere is highly energy and spatial dependent, and it is described by the Parker's Transport Equation in the heliosphere. At large radial distances, far from the Sun (~94 AU), there exists the region where the solar wind undergoes a transition from supersonic to subsonic speeds called the "solar wind termination shock". The region between the termination shock and the heliopause (the boundary marking the end of the heliosphere) is called the heliosheath. This region acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing their intensity at lower energies by about 90%; thus it is not only the Earth's magnetic field that protects us from cosmic ray bombardment.

wiki

Originally posted by debunky

I've read this somewhere else, discussing the same topic but i think it's rather clever:

In 1980 I could go to London, buy a plane ticket to New York, and could get there in 4 hours!
Today, 30 years later, thats impossible.

I give you a hint: (A funny hint too, if you ask me)

Yes I get it, technology goes in cycles, we dont know how the pyramids were built, but we know they were built.

But the difference between the Concorde and Apollo is that the Concorde was a natural progression of air travel. We still have supersonic jets being flown today. We still have commercial travel all over the world. Its logical, that those can once more be combined for supersonic commercial travel.

Apollo was not a logical progression of space flight. The idea that the US could go from no man in orbit to man on the moon in 8 or 9 years, back in the '60s, is ludicrous. Im sure we can send a man to the moon, but just like that picture you posted, that man ain't coming back alive. It would be a one way ticket, a suicide mission. As a matter of fact, how many simple probes has NASA been able to return back to Earth? Didnt the Russians have one of their probes return to Earth? And NASA cant? So thanks, you just put another nail in the coffin for Apollo!

And this nonsense that we cant go back to the moon because of politics. B.S.
If the US wanted to, they could partner with a host of countries, and make an international effort to land men on the moon. There are many countries today trying to go for it now.

The US doesn't want to "help out" because they cant. Not because the American people dont have the will to do it. People dont make a big deal about it because its expected in this day and age to have moonbases, space stations, these should all be normal facts of life. They are not.

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, for sure Apollo was a hoax. It was just a TV Show. What was the excuse for Apollo 13 and the ending of the Apollo Program? Lack of public interest? You mean, lack of TV viewers! Combine that with the fact that if NASA couldn't get their satellites working for live feeds of Apollo 11, they would have cancelled the mission ??


No, the public didnt loose interest, the public were waiting for their turn to go to the moon. Commercialization... (remember your mission statement NASA?) It was more like, 'cool, now that we can do that, let me know when its my turn'. Let me know when I can take my wife on a real honeymoon.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?

Erm...

FoosM quoted, then said:

The Lunar Module's descent engine blew out high-velocity lunar particles that strafed the landscape.

You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.

To further support his mental picture of the dust, FoosM also quoted this (out of context, as usual):

they have determined the shape of the blowing dust clouds under the LM

And finally, he said:

Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).

So no, he never said or implied it billowed, uh-uh, no way, not at all..

Ever notice how Foos disappears every time he gets his teeth kicked in, waits a few days, and then comes back like nothing ever happened posting completely irrelevant garbage?

That's just plain scary. At least others (like WWu and max2m) have had the decency to disappear after being made absolute fools of.

Sorry dude, but my teeth are just fine.
If you think you somehow debunked me, or got me in a contradiction.
You didnt. You are contradicting NASA. Thats why I dont usually respond, because there is nothing to respond to. I cant tell whose side your on, NASA's or your own.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Fine, then you must know more about it than 'Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine'

"However, eight respondents mentioned an increase in LF rate (n = 3), intensity (n = 1), or both (n = 4) in the SAA. Three respondents thought the LF frequency increased at high latitudes and two that both the LF frequency and the intensity increased near the poles,"

So, who should I believe you or them?

I forgot to ask for a link to this study, or, in lieu of that, a link to the site where you got it.

www.ingentaconnect.com...;jsessionid=1ayxgdtu23xyp.alexandra?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fasma%2fasem%2f2006%2f00000077%2f00000004%2fart00 012&mimetype=text%2fhtml

search phosphenes

[edit on 9-6-2010 by FoosM]

Your link doesn't work. Why not just post the title of the study?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did I say lunar dust should billow?

Erm...

FoosM quoted, then said:

The Lunar Module's descent engine blew out high-velocity lunar particles that strafed the landscape.

You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.

To further support his mental picture of the dust, FoosM also quoted this (out of context, as usual):

they have determined the shape of the blowing dust clouds under the LM

And finally, he said:

Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).

So no, he never said or implied it billowed, uh-uh, no way, not at all..

Ever notice how Foos disappears every time he gets his teeth kicked in, waits a few days, and then comes back like nothing ever happened posting completely irrelevant garbage?

That's just plain scary. At least others (like WWu and max2m) have had the decency to disappear after being made absolute fools of.

Sorry dude, but my teeth are just fine.
If you think you somehow debunked me, or got me in a contradiction.
You didnt. You are contradicting NASA. Thats why I dont usually respond, because there is nothing to respond to. I cant tell whose side your on, NASA's or your own.

Then please tell us why NASA would not be able to tell what camera settings to use prior to the first landing? It's a simple question, and one that does have an answer.

Originally posted by FoosM

www.ingentaconnect.com...;jsessionid=1ayxgdtu23xyp.alexandra?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fasma%2fasem%2f2006%2f00000077%2f00000004%2fart00 012&mimetype=text%2fhtml

search phosphenes

[edit on 9-6-2010 by FoosM]

What a moron you are. Here is the study:

Phosp henes in Low Earth Orbit

No wonder you were trying to hide it. It says exactly what we've been saying about these LMs. They vary greatly from person to person and nobody is sure what causes them. So the fact that two Apollo astronauts saw something different is PROVEN IN THIS ARTICLE to be of no importance.

Introduction: It has long been known that many people in space experience sudden phosphenes, or light flashes. Although it is clear that they are related to high-energy particles in the space radiation environment, many details about them are still unknown. In an effort to gain more knowledge about the light flashes, a study was initiated to collect information from people who have recently flown in space. Method: A survey conducted by anonymous questionnaire was performed among astronauts regarding their experience of sudden light flashes in space. In all, 98 surveys were distributed to current NASA and ESA astronauts. Results: Among the 59 respondents, 47 noticed them sometime during spaceflight. Most often they were noted before sleep, and several people even thought the light flashes disturbed their sleep. The light flashes predominantly appear white, have elongated shapes, and most interestingly, often come with a sense of motion. The motion is described as sideways, diagonal, or in-out, but never in the vertical direction. Discussion: Comparisons with earlier studies of light flashes in space and several ground-based studies during the 1970s are made. One interesting observation from this is that it seems that a small fraction of the light flashes is caused by Cherenkov radiation, while the majority is probably caused by some kind of direct interaction with elements in the retina.

The really sad thing is that you aren't even smart enough to realize you're being made a fool of...

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes I get it, technology goes in cycles, we dont know how the pyramids were built, but we know they were built.

But the difference between the Concorde and Apollo is that the Concorde was a natural progression of air travel. We still have supersonic jets being flown today. We still have commercial travel all over the world. Its logical, that those can once more be combined for supersonic commercial travel.

No, my friend. You missed the point entirely, while actually pointing at it no less

Are you trying to say that we dont know how concordes were built?

You say we have commercial flights
(We have the ISS & Shuttles & Soyuz, aka we have manned space exploration)

You say we have supersonic flight
(We have robot probes on the moon, mars, around jupiter, saturn, etc, etc)

Once we had both combined.
Now not anymore

You say we could combine those things again, if we wanted to.
I say: Yes, we could.

I also say we don't send people anymore because we can do it with robots now.

Originally posted by MacAnkka

All in all,I'm getting tired of you people constantly claiming we couldn't have gone to the moon. Here's my response to that: the alternative is even more implausible! we couldn't have faked it! Please, at least try to prove me wrong.

Mate a number of us have asked for a detailed description of how you would hoax a moon landing, and the only thing the hoaxers have come up with is "oh it would be easy".

You would think the first port of call for these guys would be to demonstrate how a hoax could be perpetrated. Of course, its been over 40 years and none of them can work this one out (those NASA guys must have been utter geniuses to hoax this hey...wonder what would happen if they actually tried to put a man on the moon!).

It shows how little thought they've put into it...honestly just sitting down and thinking through the steps that would need to be carried out for a successful hoax tells you they would have had to do an actual lunar landing just to pull the hoax off. So the only difference is that in hoax-land there wasnt a human on board, but in reality there was.

Oh PS: CHRLZ, no, not everyone that lives in Sydney has the intellect of JW or this other clown. While there are plenty of ijits around, thankfully those of us that remain sane still survive

[edit on 10-6-2010 by zvezdar]

Originally posted by zvezdar
Mate a number of us have asked for a detailed description of how you would hoax a moon landing, and the only thing the hoaxers have come up with is "oh it would be easy".

Well first you blast off, then in low earth orbit, simulate you're half way to the moon.



Then you spend the remainder circling the earth, while the guys on wires are filmed in a TV studio



The previous Apollo missions telemetry is bounced of a probe / satellite so the data looks good.

Then you drop out of low earth orbit to a hero's welcome.

Easy.

edit: in fact I've been reading some old archive documents from the parkes tracking station in Australia, and there was talk of how a NASA plane could be used to simulate the data, but they decided the dish wouldn't be able to lock on to it... but the fact remains, they knew an aircraft had this capability.

After a bit more research i'll post some more on this. .. there are some fantastic old documents.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Oh, ppk55....getting that desperate??

That video is totally BUNKED!!! Has been for years and years. It is a load of crap nonsense...AND I suspect you actually are aware of that...yet, you post it anyway?? WHY? I mean, it appears YOU have been doing quite a bit of studying, regarding Apollo.....


The WHOLE stupidity, as 'claimed', that the "round window" being used to "simulate" the round Earth is utter BS!

ANYONE who bothers to do a little checking into the design of the Apollo CM will see this instantly.

(Hint, also: You can see the friggin' continents! AND, the weather patterns, which are also verifiable from old meteorological records...)

Let's see if YOU can figure it out (assuming you actually believe that tripe in the video) OR, will you man up and admit that you DID know it's ridiculous, and admit you posted that video with full knowledge of such? Which is it?

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

On better thought...considering you have the GALL to post that other video, and seemingly with a straight face...("wires"?!? Not even 'JW' is THAT stupid!!) I am of the opinion that you are now TROLLING...intentionally.

That is not welcome, here.

[edit on 10 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

The astronauts simulating a fake distant earth has not been debunked. Take a look at it.
I was replying to MacAnkka who asked how it was done.
I showed how easy it was in the above 2 videos.

reply to post by FoosM


And, once again...FoosM demonstrates, quite clearly, that he/she has NO idea what he/she is talking about...or simply wishes to continue to lie, because there is no other choice:

Same for Apollo literature. Most is repeated nonsense. And by that I mean the idea that we landed on the moon, and not the science behind the idea to land on the moon.

IN THIS THREAD ALONE, there have been links to a multitude of sources, and a great deal of it very, very technical. Maybe that is the problem, for some people here.....too technical? Too hard to comprehend?

Nah...much, easier, innit, to just 'hand wave' with statements like, "Oh, Apollo books just all repeat that we landed! That's all there is, just a bunch of repeats! Nothing else."

(It's almost like asking Sarah Palin what magazines she reads, and expecting a cogent response...instead of: "Why, ALL of them!")






This sort

reply to post by ppk55


NO. That video is junk, and you know it!

I presented the challenge...read it again.

reply to post by ppk55


And how do you render the CSM invisible to optical telescopes and Soviet radar while it's in orbit? A Romulan cloaking device?

[edit on 10-6-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That video is totally BUNKED!!! Has been for years and years. It is a load of crap nonsense...AND I suspect you actually are aware of that

Well Buzz Aldrin seemed pretty disturbed by it in this interview when it was shown to him for the first time. This is from Jarrah's moonfaker series.
It gets real interesting @ about 3 mins in.

Originally posted by ppk55

Well Buzz Aldrin seemed pretty disturbed by it in this interview when it was shown to him for the first time. This is from Jarrah's moonfaker series.
It gets real interesting @ about 3 mins in.

If someone came up to me and called me the things Sibrel called Buzz, I'd have broken his skull. The convicted criminal Sibrel is lucky he didn't get he head kicked in.

BTW, ppk, what's it like to not have an original thought in your head? What's it like to have to use other peoples words for your own arguments?

Most people would be too embarassed to admit it.