Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Dragon, if I agree with you over 85% of the time with less than a +/- 25% error what does that even mean? It's a load of scientific rubbish, don't you think?

The large number of nuclear fragmentation reactions
requires an extensive physical interaction data-base and the quantum multiple scattering
(QMSFRG) model provides an accurate data base agreeing with over 85% of the
measured heavy ion cross sections with less than +/- 25% error (Cucinotta et al., 2006)

Well, that's a quote straight out of your pdf. And it looks like that pdf is published by NASA. Where is the independent science confirming Apollo radiation levels?

those are two seperate things you are confusing.. related but seperate.. the models agree with 85% of simulations run.. the errors within each simulation have less than +/- 25% error.

it is NOT 85% +/-25% like what you are thinking.

Here's another nice quote out of your pdf.

there are no human data to estimate risks

I hate to say it but that pdf isn't worth the download because it's NASA scientists confirming NASA mythology. This is a Disclosure thread!
What did NASA disclose? no human data

edit on 8/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: add more science

are you proposing we bombard thousands of subjects with GCR's and then cut them up for study?? getting kind of genocidal now arent you?
the reason we have any data on effects of radiation on humans was because of the dropping of nuclear weapons and some other nuclear disasters..

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I think we've all seen enough simulated science in this thread but here you are recommending MORE of it for some reason. Do you think it helps your argument to talk about simulations as proof? No, it doesn't help at all.

Theoretical science experiments don't count in Apollo. What counts is putting a living, breathing man in the same shielded aluminum capsule and sending him back to the moon for a few days.

That's the kind of science that NASA claimed it could do when Nixon was president. We have already discussed the financials and the conclusion that Nixon had whatever amount he wanted, up to and including the $4 billion, to bomb the hell out of North Vietnam at the same time Apollo 17 was headed back from the "moon", this is the only correct conclusion.

Now 41 years later you want us to look at your dubious radiation simulations?

edit on 8/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add

data retrieved from curiosity on its trip to mars suggests that it would take SEVERAL MONTHS beyond LEO before we get close to the limits of radiation dosage and GCR's are just over half of what they are when on the surface as opposed to in flight..

yet we still cant get to and return from the moon within 12 days because radiation is a limiting factor??? is this what you are suggesting???

reply to post by choos

those are two seperate things you are confusing.. related but seperate.. the models agree with 85% of simulations run.. the errors within each simulation have less than +/- 25% error.

What I am saying is that your models are not helping to prove Apollo. A demonstration, like to Apollo 8, would suffice. Your models and simulations are not credible enough to support the claims of NASA.

This is where all the NASA claims fail. No demonstration since 1972? Missing tapes? Missing modules? Keep Out Zones? It's all there to show the claims fail. You know how science works choos... by confirmation.

It looks like Apollo is merely a claim based on a theory based on NASA's published 'evidence'. It worked for the Warren Commission, didn't it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by dragonridr
Here check out the data in the appendix even has breakdown of total badge exposure for every astronaut. Which means if you were to email johnson space center im sure they would email you the data since they have it graphed out.

www.ntrs.nasa.gov...

Dragon, if I agree with you over 85% of the time with less than a +/- 25% error what does that even mean? It's a load of scientific rubbish, don't you think?

The large number of nuclear fragmentation reactions
requires an extensive physical interaction data-base and the quantum multiple scattering
(QMSFRG) model provides an accurate data base agreeing with over 85% of the
measured heavy ion cross sections with less than +/- 25% error (Cucinotta et al., 2006)

Well, that's a quote straight out of your pdf. And it looks like that pdf is published by NASA. Where is the independent science confirming Apollo radiation levels?

Here's another nice quote out of your pdf.

there are no human data to estimate risks

I hate to say it but that pdf isn't worth the download because it's NASA scientists confirming NASA mythology. This is a Disclosure thread!
What did NASA disclose? no human data

edit on 8/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: add more science

what that referring to is the simulations if you get an 85 out of a hundred that means i ran the simulation and only 15 out of a hundred gave me a different result. As far as the 75 +- 25 basically states that every simulation has about a 25 percent chance of being wrong. This is how all simulations are done.

And trust me i figured you would dismiss any scientic data that disputes your beliefs no surprise there, That is precisely the reason i asked you to prove the data wrong and you wont even attempt it will you the reason being you cant can you? See you like to throw around innuendos but are unwilling to produce facts ive come to the conclusion your so befuddled by this whole topic that your now contradicting yourself. This has been pointed out several times and when you get lost out pops magazine covers and you start all over again. So to save all of us time make your case!!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

those are two seperate things you are confusing.. related but seperate.. the models agree with 85% of simulations run.. the errors within each simulation have less than +/- 25% error.

What I am saying is that your models are not helping to prove Apollo. A demonstration, like to Apollo 8, would suffice. Your models and simulations are not credible enough to support the claims of NASA.

This is where all the NASA claims fail. No demonstration since 1972? Missing tapes? Missing modules? Keep Out Zones? It's all there to show the claims fail. You know how science works choos... by confirmation.

It looks like Apollo is merely a claim based on a theory based on NASA's published 'evidence'. It worked for the Warren Commission, didn't it.

Again one liners no substance as i said make your case prove NASAs data is wrong i gave you a graph of ever astronaut thats been to space from Gemini all the way to the ISS. So you have all those dosimeter readings to play with now show us how NASA faked it find us someone that agrees with you with any scientific background.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

those are two seperate things you are confusing.. related but seperate.. the models agree with 85% of simulations run.. the errors within each simulation have less than +/- 25% error.

What I am saying is that your models are not helping to prove Apollo. A demonstration, like to Apollo 8, would suffice. Your models and simulations are not credible enough to support the claims of NASA.

This is where all the NASA claims fail. No demonstration since 1972? Missing tapes? Missing modules? Keep Out Zones? It's all there to show the claims fail. You know how science works choos... by confirmation.

It looks like Apollo is merely a claim based on a theory based on NASA's published 'evidence'. It worked for the Warren Commission, didn't it.

so you are also saying the data collected by Curiosity on its way to Mars never happened?? because the data collected on that shows that GCR's are not an issue for 12 days. it takes nearly one year before the doses approach the limits specified..

Originally posted by choos
so you are also saying the data collected by Curiosity on its way to Mars never happened?? because the data collected on that shows that GCR's are not an issue for 12 days. it takes nearly one year before the doses approach the limits specified..

What are you talking about Mars in a Moon thread choos?

I just read an article how NASA had used computers to model the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor family. Supposedly, NASA backtracked the orbit some 20,000 years.

Why can't NASA use those same computers to model the orbits of Eagle & Orion and compute a fairly estimated orbital decay and compute the possible crash sites for Eagle & Orion???

They won't do it because it's a top secret, choos. What are they hiding on the moon, choos? Have any ideas?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
so you are also saying the data collected by Curiosity on its way to Mars never happened?? because the data collected on that shows that GCR's are not an issue for 12 days. it takes nearly one year before the doses approach the limits specified..

What are you talking about Mars in a Moon thread choos?

I just read an article how NASA had used computers to model the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor family. Supposedly, NASA backtracked the orbit some 20,000 years.

Why can't NASA use those same computers to model the orbits of Eagle & Orion and compute a fairly estimated orbital decay and compute the possible crash sites for Eagle & Orion???

They won't do it because it's a top secret, choos. What are they hiding on the moon, choos? Have any ideas?

why?? because the radiation levels measures on a trip mars proves that radiation is not an issue for a 12 day trip to the moon.

now thats good back tracked it 20,000 years.. but whats the error margin?? was the article saying that scientists estimate that it orginated from a massive body orbitting the sun some 20,000 to 40,000 years ago?? is this the kind of error you want to work with??

reply to post by choos


Man choos its like trying to teach physics to a monkey dont bother. First they didnt go to the moon now they did but hiding some secret mission or something. Next hes going to tell us about the alien battle cruiser parked on the dark side of the moon captured our lander to steal our vast scientific knowledge. And spirit it a way to there secret base on titan. Man he wouldnt get the point if you shot him with an arrow.

SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
so you are also saying the data collected by Curiosity on its way to Mars never happened?? because the data collected on that shows that GCR's are not an issue for 12 days. it takes nearly one year before the doses approach the limits specified..

What are you talking about Mars in a Moon thread choos?

I just read an article how NASA had used computers to model the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor family. Supposedly, NASA backtracked the orbit some 20,000 years.

Why can't NASA use those same computers to model the orbits of Eagle & Orion and compute a fairly estimated orbital decay and compute the possible crash sites for Eagle & Orion???

They won't do it because it's a top secret, choos. What are they hiding on the moon, choos? Have any ideas?

The gravitational pull of the Moon is "Lumpy" due to areas of the Moon that are denser than other areas of the Moon. This lumpy gravitational filed perturbs orbits. These denser parts of the Moon (called "mascons") were not well mapped out, and we are just now getting good data about these mascons from the Grail Satellite mission from 2012.


But the bigger point here is this:

Finding the general origin/orbit of an asteroid in open space over 20,000 years is not the same as finding a very specific orbit around a 3500 km rock. The Moon is a tiny object, so comparing calculating a tiny orbit around a tiny object to calculating a general orbit in the relative vastness of the solar system is not a valid exercise.

Calculating the exact location of the impact site is not the same as calculating the orbit of an object in space.

edit on 8/21/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Absolutely. And arguably an even bigger point is that nobody wants to bother to work out where the things are, because nobody cares where they are. Apart from Sayonara.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Absolutely. And arguably an even bigger point is that nobody wants to bother to work out where the things are, because nobody cares where they are. Apart from Sayonara.

[color=Cyan] We are currently in Asteroids, people. Don't you get that? E.T. is next.

Pardon Me!

I wish there were some way that we could work out the language of an agreement on the problem of Eagle &Orion. Perhaps something just like this. Will you consider these 5 points and agree to them?

1. Apollo ascent modules Eagle 11 and Orion 16 are missing. Nobody knows where they are for certain and there is little evidence to back up any claims. The modules simply disappeared. At one time, we knew the exact locations. At the next moment, they are lost forever in history.

2. NASA has not made a worthwhile effort to locate these missing modules.

3. NASA has imposed Keep Out Zones and pending legislation gives the Administrator full authority to "preserve and protect" Apollo heritage sites.

4. NASA will be launching a new laser weapons platform, LADEE, next month, to patrol the moon ahead of the Chinese and Indian lunar projects coming up.

5. The Disclosure Project's Carol Rosin/Werner von Braun and the von Braun Prophecy which is coming true!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

4. NASA will be launching a new laser weapons platform, LADEE, next month, to patrol the moon ahead of the Chinese and Indian lunar projects coming up.

Back to the old "communications laser weapon" huh. I'd be really impressed if they managed to use low powered communications lasers as a weapons system. That would mean that all they'd have to do to create laser weapons was put communications lasers on something. Easy as pie, instead of as hard as it has been to create an effective laser weapon.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

There you go again, making stuff up and forging life covers - you know you have no facts so you just make crap up, like the Life cover!

Originally posted by hellobruce
There you go again, making stuff up and forging life covers - you know you have no facts so you just make crap up, like the Life cover!

I think it's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the FACTS.
The LIFE magazine cover is real.
The words I typed over are the Werner von Braun Prophecy.

All did was to combine the two things into a single image.

I do not "just make crap up". Those two things are real. You spend an awful lot of time denying reality.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I think it's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the FACTS.
The LIFE magazine cover is real.

No it is not, it is just another of your lies. Here is the original

www.oldlife.net.../18/1957

You have no facts, so you have to forge Life covers. Pathetic.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

3. NASA has imposed Keep Out Zones and pending legislation gives the Administrator full authority to "preserve and protect" Apollo heritage sites.

Not true. NASA has drafted guidelines that it would like people to follow in terms of protecting the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites, and recognises that it has no actual authority to forbid people to go near them. It goes into great detail to explain the reasons why it would like people to co-ordinate contact with Apollo landing sites.

It does point out that the Apollo hardware is still US Government property, but in the Appendices it points out that such hardware constitutes a valuable research resource because we can learn about the degradation it has suffered over a known time span, Making best use of that research resource requires co-ordination and thought so you don't trash the site for other people in the future. Common sense.

www.nasa.gov... G_LUNAR_HISTORIC_SITES_RevA-508(1).pdf

NASA has better things to do than look for a needle in a haystack, You seem to have the time, however, so I would recommend you take all the information that is available and work out where the missing LM ascent modules are. Let us know how you get on.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by hellobruce
There you go again, making stuff up and forging life covers - you know you have no facts so you just make crap up, like the Life cover!

I think it's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the FACTS.
The LIFE magazine cover is real.
The words I typed over are the Werner von Braun Prophecy.

All did was to combine the two things into a single image.

I do not "just make crap up". Those two things are real. You spend an awful lot of time denying reality.

Your funny you deny it was edited then admit you did it. All i can say is you no longer have any credibility left. Youve shown over and over that you cant even keep your stories straight. Guy just stop for your sake at this point its just gone to being embarrassing.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I think it's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the FACTS.
The LIFE magazine cover is real.

No it is not, it is just another of your lies. Here is the original

www.oldlife.net.../18/1957

You have no facts, so you have to forge Life covers. Pathetic.

Are you stupid?
He clearly showed you the EXACT same picture, but said that he wrote over the cover. I think he really just did that to illustrate a point he was making about Von Braun.

Yikes.

Originally posted by iamusic
Are you stupid?

No, you are the stupid one for not reading a thread before posting....

He clearly showed you the EXACT same picture, but said that he wrote over the cover.

No, he only said that after he had forged the cover and got caught out!

Still does not stop the fact he has nothing but made up silly stories.