• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is alternative info that contradicts the official data.
You actually have alternative info (real numbers) that contradicts the "official data"? What is it and who measured it? If you are able to provide actual radiation level data in space, then as far as I know you would be the very first Apollo denier to do so.

The only people who can be sure of the true nature and levels of space radiation are people with high security clearances.
So if you know that the alternative data conflicts with the official data, then you must be one of those with the "high security clearance" that allows you to know. Can you tell us enough to prove that you are in the know without violating any security statutes?

The rest of us have no way of knowing what the levels are.
I guess this means you do not have a security clearance and have no idea what the radiation levels are in space?

Ranb
 
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

From your link;
The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.
Complete BS. They are nearly interchangeable for gamma radiation exposure, but roentgen is a unit of x-ray radiation and rem is a unit of biological damage caused by any type of radiation.

Nowhere in your link does it specify what the Apollo astronauts actually received on their trips. It does speculate what they might have received if they endured a solar flare, but this is not the same thing.

Ranb
 
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
I don't suppose that the Coilliers have any taped evidence that Van Allan said what they claim? Do you believe that article for any other reason than that it supports the conclusions that you arrived at without having access to any other valid radiation data?

Ranb
 
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.

Do those videos contain any information on actual radiation levels during the Apollo space flights? If so, what link and at what time in the video? I assume you watched all those videos and are familiar with them?

Ranb
 
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.
No, I am pointing out that you know nothing at all about it, but reject the advice of people who actually do know something about it because of your absolutely rigid ideological belief.

In fact, you must believe, reflexively and without evidence, that anyone who contradicts you is lying. This includes pretty much the entire space science, engineering, and operations community who, because of your desperate need to avoid considering that you might be wrong, must all be lying; millions of people over generations all lying and conspiring to hide the truth from DavidC the Brave Anonymous Internet Warrior for Truth.

The theory is that the info you say I should study is bogus.
Wrong. As already explained, you do not have a "theory". You have an unsupported belief.
There is alternative info that contradicts the official data.
There is "alternative info" that contradicts the official claim that the world is round; that contradicts the official claim that the Earth revolves about the Sun; that contradicts the official claim that if you do not ingest nutrition, you will eventually get sick and die. All of these are exactly as valid as your "alternative info". Unlike you, I do knot merely regurgitate random third-party web sites that support my belief; I actually have the relevant education and work experience to evaluate them.

Your "alternative info" is laughably silly to those with education and experience in the subject. Again, I ask: 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?
The only people who can be sure of the true nature and levels of space radiation are people with high security clearances.
Wrong. As already explained, this is manifestly untrue. Commercial and civil spacecraft are largely designed, built, and operated by people without security clearances. I have been there and done that. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The rest of us have no way of knowing what the levels are.
This, too, is manifestly wrong. Many scientists, students, and amateurs (like KA9Q) have hands-on, non-NASA experience with space radiation effects. Please stop pretending this has not been explained to you already.

Moreover, any interested layman can learn enough about the subject to really get a good understanding for it. Please do not ascribe your laziness and determined ignorance to everyone else.
The government lies about so many other things, so why should we just believe their info on space radiation?
Because the public data used by every spacefaring country, every spacecraft designer, manufacturer, operator, and insurer worldwide is consistent with it, and if your fantasy were correct said spacecraft would routinely die prematurely and inexplicably. This, too, has been carefully explained to you. Please stop pretending otherwise.
<link-spam deleted>
No. I and others have looked at your regurgitated web sites, here and elsewhere, and responded to them. Collectively, they are a cautionary tale of grade-school physics fail.

Now it's your turn, you lazy hypocrite: you reflexively deny the explanations, or pretend they never happened, and then refuse to consider sources backed by actual practice, with real-world accountability. No more hiding: Describe, in your own words, what exactly is wrong with the science and engineering a small sample of which I've already provided to you. No hypocritical loyalty tests. No cherry-picking quotes. No appeals to equal ignorance. Use your own words, and state your assumptions, and show your work.


Oh, and one other thing: You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
 
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.

So, your argument here boils down to this: since the government HAS lied in the past, then they MUST be lying about SPAAAACE RAAADIIAATIIOOON!!!!

Great sleuthing!
 
From your link...

I debunk Wozney extensively at Clavius. And despite Wozney's continued activity in hoax advocacy, he has never once responded to my invitation for a debate or to my challenges to his claims. My conclusion is that Wozney is wrong, knows he's wrong (or at least wouldn't last long in a debate with real experts), but continues to write anyway. It's therefore not surprising that FF88 relies upon him. They are apparently operating from a similar vantage point deep under the sand.
 
I don't suppose that the Coilliers have any taped evidence that Van Allan said what they claim?

Van Allen is on record as saying specifically that the hoax claims are nonsense. I have in my files a signed letter from him to that effect. This is a non-starter. Hoax believers try to infer this or that, or to sew together different quotes from different times, all in the vain effort to make it seem like Van Allen's views on this subject are favorable to them, or at best are contradictory. All that simply flies in the face of Van Allen's clear statement that the hoax believers are spewing nonsense when they say radiation would have prevented Apollo astronauts from going to the Moon. He has directly and specifically repudiated the conspiracists' statements. Full stop.
 
WHy do HBs always think that NASA is the only organisation in the world with any data on 'space radiation'

Also do we need a poll on how many people think the Chinese spacewalk is a hoax?
 
The Russians pioneered work on what became known as the Van Allen belts, and it was only their political isolation that allowed Van Allen to get in their and get his name on them.

The Soviets never had an issue with radiation. I've seen a report somewhere (I'd have to dig it out) from a Russian author that concludes that radiation levels would not be an issue.

Of course they know that radiation levels in space are lethal and are only published all that research because they are paid by NASA to say so :rolleyes:
 
...

In fact, you must believe, reflexively and without evidence, that anyone who contradicts you is lying. This includes pretty much the entire space science, engineering, and operations community who, because of your desperate need to avoid considering that you might be wrong, must all be lying; millions of people over generations all lying and conspiring to hide the truth from DavidC the Brave Anonymous Internet Warrior for Truth.
...
I partially agree. Freddy doesn't "need" to consider everyone else a liar, he is simply mentally incapable of believing otherwise. Maybe that state initially arose from a need to ignore evidence, but it has long since reached the point of pathology. Ironically, this also means that he himself is not lying, since like many CTs, he is literally incapable of acknowledging or comprehending information or logic inimical to his positions, such as this "security clearance" nonsense. He cannot be lying, because he does not believe he can be wrong.

WHy do HBs always think that NASA is the only organisation in the world with any data on 'space radiation'
...

FoosM on ATM once wanted to know if anyone had corroborated NASA's results. When it was provided, he rejected it because the organizations in question had a connection to NASA.

Think about that for a second.
 
The Russians pioneered work on what became known as the Van Allen belts, and it was only their political isolation that allowed Van Allen to get in their and get his name on them.

The Soviets never had an issue with radiation. I've seen a report somewhere (I'd have to dig it out) from a Russian author that concludes that radiation levels would not be an issue.

Of course they know that radiation levels in space are lethal and are only published all that research because they are paid by NASA to say so :rolleyes:

The pdf is found here....

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf

It's all made up though, because my SatNav/Mobile Phone/Sky TV doesn't actually work because the "deadly radiation" knocked out all the satellites:rolleyes:
 
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. ...
As you have amply demonstrated, Fred, the idea that you, personally, need to actually know what you're talking about before you talk about it is clearly ridiculous.

The only people who can be sure of the true nature and levels of space radiation are people with high security clearances.
As has already been pointed out, all modern spacecraft are built using this falsified data, meaning they should not be able to function. Simple logic proves you wrong, before even getting into your lack of evidence for the claim.

The government lies about so many other things, so why should we just believe their info on space radiation?
Or, for that measure, weights and measures. Who do you think regulates the clock in your computer, Fred? The portions at your grocer's, the gas in your mom's tank? How can we be certain they're telling the truth about anything?

This is called Reductio ad Absurdum, Fred. The way we know is that their data has been corroborated by who knows how many other countries, schools, and private individuals, over and over again, for forty-odd years, including those who would have everything to gain by exposing the hoax, such as the USSR, which even confirmed the US moon rocks were real. There are people currently building private spacecraft based on this "falsified" data without any clearance whatsoever. Richard Branson sure doesn't have any kind of Deep Black Ultraviolet Megablue Backflip 007 Mobius Double Reacharound Clearance.

Is this a favored tactic of yours? Just ignore all the counterpoints, make snide insinuations about debunkers, and restate your already debunked claims?
 
Last edited:
Is this a favored tactic of yours? Just ignore all the counterpoints, make snide insinuations about debunkers, and restate your already debunked claims?

I'm shocked you would even say this. Conspiracy theorists NEVER do that.
 
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.

In other words since you made up a scenario in which the entire scientific community has been lied to concerning radiation levels and types in space, and further supposed that it is at least as plausible as the opposite; to whit; that space radiation levels and science is correct in the publically available literature, and others are just supposed to believe you because you say its so?
That is truly bad logic, you have absolutly no evidence that your scenraio is correct and yet you automatically accept it because others with the same ignorance you display on the subject of radiation say its so.
You know basically nothing about the feild of space radiation as publically available and yet you automatically reject it despite the entirety of space technology having successfully relied on it for the past 6 decades.
So sad for you.

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

yes, yes, a link to a link to a link none of which illustrates that anyone postulating this scenario has any credibility or evidence or science to back it up. Instead we are to believe people who demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the basic nature of radiation, and the enviroment in space.

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."
--------------------------------------------------------

Which says nothing about the ability to sheild humans against this radiation enough to allow space flight
Perhaps you'd care to post something that does?

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."

Only "plausible" if one knows next to nothing about the nature of space radiation. Indeed if one were to be placed naked in space then the radiation would be deadly(setting aside the fact that the vaccum itself would be as well).
THAT is IIRC the 'sloppiness' that Van Allen is referring to. Yes, particle radiation can easily be sheilded by a relatively light layer of polymer. X-ray and gamma ray require better sheilding but that is unaffected by our magnetosphere and therefore NOT what was being referred to in your earlier quote ("Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier.") in this post.
-------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Anomolies in your own mind do not make them actual anomolies.
The FACT that you have little to no demonstrable grasp of radiation bodes ill for anyone's taking you seriously on any other technical topic. Radiation danger is the foundation of your entire premise. It is the reason why the missions were supoosedly faked and yet you demonstrate ignorance and the willingness to accept ignorant postulations from others on this point.

Why should anyone believe anything you have to say when you demonstrate ignorance in this part of the issue, the foundation on which you build your case?
 
Last edited:
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.

Freddy, you are flat-out wrong here. I worked on a nano-satellite building team during my years at university. This was part of a university competition sponsored by the US Air Force. Surely someone in the Air Force has access to the "real" numbers and would've said something if our designs did not correspond to reality, but the only commentary on our proposal was ensuring we dealt with backout protection for our mounting hardware. Nothing whatsoever to do with radiation hardening or lack thereof. Now tell me, how could a bunch of undergrad students perfectly nail a satellite design without access to real radiation data?
 
What I still havent had answered ever, but maybe this time FF88 will do so..
Why?
Why would a million people or more, over the course of several generations consitently and without anyone breaking from the fold lie about a manned flight into space/to the moon?

Because from where I sit this is serious underpants gnomes logic.
Lie about manned flights
????
Profit!

Even if you were proven right, *nothing* in the world would change, so why bother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom