Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I believe if FF88 would just answer this question, he would appear engaged and honest. Until then, evasive.
That's a very interesting argument, to wit: if NASA had a certain capability, that's proof enough that they used it.
NASA has very clearly demonstrated that they had the capability of sending humans to the moon in the 1960s. NASA gives public tours of the launch facilities. The Apollo hardware is in museums open to public inspection. The Apollo design documents are openly available on the web. Any competent engineer can examine them and see that the designs are perfectly viable. I have. So have many others.
So that's all the proof you should require that the Apollo missions really did land 12 men on the moon between 1969 and 1972.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
I can't really consider anyone to be engaged and honest who attempts to impose a loyalty test on everyone else. Loyalty tests are tools for stifling dissent and delegitimizing anyone who has different views. Since FF88/DavidC/rocky/etc. presents himself as relentlessly opposed to the evil repressive powers-that-be, for him to make such use of such a tool of repression is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
"You're either with us or you're against us." "If you don't agree with my interpretation of this video, you're a liar." Shameful.
Anyway, Post 8523, rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/cosmored.
You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
Last edited:
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
You're ignoring the issue of space radiation. They obviously had the capability to send unmanned probes far into space. The theory is that they had to fake it because they couldn't protect humans from space radiation although they were able to build unmanned probes that were radiation-proof. Click on the bottom link in this post to see some alternative info on space radiation.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Straw Man
Flammable
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 8,184
FF. Why does almost everything you post demand a click on a link to your earlier nonsense?
And please answer the question below that you keep avoiding.
And please answer the question below that you keep avoiding.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
With respect - if they can proof the unmanned probes, and lots of stuff used here in atmosphere, against radiation, and were able to do so in the 50s, they were able to do it to a manned probe.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
State your training and qualifications in this area.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Myself included. Your statement is correct, however FF88 does not consider you competent or trustworthy unless you pass his loyalty test. He will use the fact that you agree with me and that I disagree with him as an excuse not to have to listen to you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, and he also imposed a burden for negative proof on his critics. More evidence of the fantasy world from which FF88 derives his arguments.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Loyalty test rejected.
You can pretend all you want, but you look very deluded when you refuse to present evidence for your libelous accusation that I am a paid government disinformation agent. Please present that proof immediately or withdraw the claim.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Answer the question, Claire.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
The same probes that were used to characterize the radiation environment in near-Earth, cislunar, and translunar space before Apollo, and during the time Mercury and Gemini and Soyuz were providing experience with manned spaceflight.
Wrong. You do not have a "theory". A theory requires some sort of physical explanation, but you have no knowledge of the subject at all. Also, a theory is falsifiable, but your notion is insulated from falsification by your fixed insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.
(Aerospace Med.) Implications of Space Radiation in Manned Space Flights, 1959.
(Aerospace Med.) Radiation Dosage in Flight through the Van Allen Belt, 1959.
(Aero/Space Eng.) The Ionizing Radiation in Space. Structural Implications, 1960.
TM-X-56725, Radiation Hazards in Space, 1961.
TM-X-51689, NASA Space Radiation Effects Laboratory, 1962.
(Bellcom) the Radiation Environment of Apollo (interim report), 1963.
TM-X-51568, Radiation Environment in Space, 1964.
TM-X-54700, Space Radiations: A Compilation and Discussion, 1964.
SP-71, Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiations in Space (conference proceedings),1964.
TN-D-2746, Model Solar Proton Environments for Manned Spacecraft Design, 1965.
(Bellcom) TR-65-340-1, Solar Cosmic Ray Events, 1965.
NAMI-987, Linear Energy Transfer Spectra and Dose Equivalents of Galactic Radiation Exposure in Space, 1966.
(Fairchild Hiller) FHR-13 95-3, Solar Flare Hazard to Earth-Orbiting Vehicles, 1966.
(Bellcom) Variation of Interplanetary Solar Cosmic Ray Radiation Hazard with Solar Cycle - Case 103-2, 1966.
(SW Center for Advanced Studies) Environment for Manned Planetary Missions, 1967.
(Hughes) Research and Development Program for Radiation Measurements of Radiobiological Hazards of Man in Space, 1967.
(Bioscience) USSR and US bioscience, 1968.
TN-D-4404, An Analysis of Energetic Space Radiation and Dose Rates, 1968.
SP-169, Protection Against Space Radiation (conference proceedings), 1968.
AIAA-1969-19, Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission, 1969.
(Intl. Astro. Cong.) Results of biological studies performed aboard the Zond-5, 6, 7 stations, 1970.
(ANS) Combined space and nuclear radiation effects (conference paper), 1970.
CR-1871, Radiation Effects Design Handbook, Sec. 5: The Radiations in Space and their Interactions with Matter, 1971.
TN-D-6379, The Risk of Solar Proton Events to Space Missions, 1971.
TN-D-6695, Radiation Dosimetry for the Gemini Program, 1972.
Present knowledge of cosmic rays (Biophysical hazards of cosmic radiation during SST and manned space flight), 1972.
TN-D-7080, Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation, 1973.
SP-368, Biomedical Results from Apollo, 1974.
Feel free to provide a quantitative explanation of why humans could not be successfully protected. Or you could browse through the above sampling (and this is only a small sampling) of the research over the years, and explain exactly where they do not provide indications of the evolving understanding and mitigation of the challenges. In your own words.
Wrong. No space vehicle is "radiation-proof". Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I have a degree in space physics, and over two decades in space engineering, and I can make my own judgments. How about you, rocky/DavidC/etc.? What relevant education and work experience do you have? If you have none, why do you blindly accept the word of unqualified persons with no accountability for their claims? (I know why you do, but I want to hear you explain yourself.)
By the way, speaking of radiation, you've made the claim - without any supporting evidence whatsoever - that there are "two sets" of radiation data, one to fool the "public" and another set of " real data that only people with high security clearances can see." In reality, most commerical and civil satellite designers and engineers do not have security clearances, and their spacecraft are designed using the same "public" data. Billions of dollars of commerce every year depend on it. As usual, you are (a) wrong and (b) have no idea what you are talking about.
Now, Post 8523, rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/cosmored.
You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So agreeing with Betamax means I would fail to meet your personal standard of objectivity based upon YOUR subjective interpretation of the spacewalk, disagreeing with Betamax however will not in any way by itself prove video fakery at all, not saying if I agree or disagree dooms me to the same fate , wrt to you, as agreeing.
You are once again requiring a personal loyalty test are you. No person is worthy of discussion with you unless they already agree with you. You and you alone are the arbitor of who is and is not objective and worthy of debating with.
Furthermore you go to the ridiculous extreme of declaring that everyone who disagrees with you knows that you are correct and are part of a vast and complex campaign of disinformation. You have actually declared, with absolutly no evidence, let alone proof, that Jay Windley is a paid disinformation peddler. Given that he has demanded that you prove your statement or with draw it and that you have done neither, your own credibility and objectivity are at stake. In fact , given that you have had ample time to do either and abjectly refuse, my personal opinion would be that you have no credibility and are the poster boy for non-objectivity.
You have been shown to be wrong so many times, by truly objective and informed persons.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
State YOUR case for this and back it up with scientific study.
That is not a theory. That is a speculative comment derived from ill-informed and patently errorneous suppostion.
If you wish to refer to this as a theory then provide proof of your underlieing premise. Make sure to include original sources for your data showing that radiation in space cannot be sheilded against in order to protect humans.
As pointed out as well, a theory is falsifiable. Please list the tests you have done or could be done, to demonstrate this 'theory's ' falsibility. (or do you even know what the term means?)
The information in these studies/papers would be part of a falsibility test. They do indeed indicate that your 'theory' has been shown to be false as opposed to not indicating it is false.(not the same as being 'true')
Much of the above is applicable to the design of electronics in unmanned spacecraft as well AND HAS been used towards that purpose which would indicate its veracity (or that the radiation situation in space is much less dangerous than these papers claim, since the probes do work )
If there is a secret set of data on radition levels and types in space then reference exactly how you know this. A simple declaration that it is so will out you as a fantasist with no credibility.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Not according to you. You have declared that anyone disagreeing with you is incorrect at best and probably lieing. Your statement above is NOT what you believe. Why would you pretend it is?
For the record I would have to squint and try very hard to believe in order to come close to envisioning that as a bubble. I see a piece of ice flake. MHO of course, could be just about anything.
Not even close to the 'lame-ness' of attempting to declare something did occur because you can envision it having been so. You assume that could=did and build upon that premise but since you cannot show that this base premise is true then your entire speculative scenario folds like a house of cards.
Last edited:
Did Freddy actually provide evidence for the existence of such data, or was it merely another unbacked claim made to patch holes in his argument?
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
No. He provided a link to a link to a link...
... and FF88, who is in equal measures lazy, arrogant, and ignorant, as usual provided no original thoughts of his own.
His link-spam featured references to equally clueless conspiracists who know nothing about physics in general or radiation in particular. Some of their howlers included not understanding the difference between incident flux and surface temperature, not understanding that solar events are not all the same, and of course the de rigeur claim that an early estimate of shielding required for interstellar journeys applied to lunar trips lasting on the order of a week. (rocky/FF88/DavidC/cosmored/etc. has had that lat bit patiently explained to him, but has refused to acknowledge even this elementary error of third-hand attribution. Add to the above qualities "dishonest".)
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
You people are putting forth the idea that I should study more of the official version of the nature and levels of space radiation before I talk about it. The theory is that the info you say I should study is bogus. There is alternative info that contradicts the official data. The only people who can be sure of the true nature and levels of space radiation are people with high security clearances. The rest of us have no way of knowing what the levels are.
The government lies about so many other things, so why should we just believe their info on space radiation? I have a link to some info on lies by the US government but I forbidden to link directly to it so click on this link and then click on the bottom link.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
The link to the info is the second one from the bottom in post #1.
I'd better post the info on radiation from that thread to make sure all of the viewers see it.
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."
--------------------------------------------------------
It's plausible that Van Allen had to start lying about what he knew when he started working for NASA.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.
"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)
The anomalies in the footage and still pictures have already proven the hoax. The radiation issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about why they faked it.
The government lies about so many other things, so why should we just believe their info on space radiation? I have a link to some info on lies by the US government but I forbidden to link directly to it so click on this link and then click on the bottom link.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
The link to the info is the second one from the bottom in post #1.
I'd better post the info on radiation from that thread to make sure all of the viewers see it.
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."
--------------------------------------------------------
It's plausible that Van Allen had to start lying about what he knew when he started working for NASA.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.
"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)
The anomalies in the footage and still pictures have already proven the hoax. The radiation issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about why they faked it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You failed to state what your training and experience in radiation is.
You failed to provide the requested proof that I am a paid government disinformation agent. Since the latter constitutes a personal accusation, either provide your proof immediately or retract the accusation, or I will report you.
- Status