Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
the Earth in that shot matches exactly every satellite image taken on that day,before the satellite images were actually taken. Likewise all the video footage matches exactly the satellite images. The first transmission made on the 16th shows a hurricane that can only have been taken on that day and can only have been taken in cislunar space. Jarrah's claims are lies.
Click to expand...
This isn't necessarily true as records can be altered. This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
(bottom link)

This is how pro-Apollo people lose debates. They refuse to answer questions that will make them look silly if they support the NASA version such as those about the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk. They change the subject and tap dance around until the person asking the questions gets tired, or banned and then go on as if nothing had happened. If you're an objective truth-seeker, tell us whether you agree with Betamax on the buoyant safety cable issue.

You can pretend all you want but you all look very silly when you refuse to say whether you agree with BetaMax's analysis.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8452301&postcount=8545
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
you have not answered this question FF

if I disagreed with him how would that prove fakery?

You assume your interpretations are correct and extrapolate that to meaning all others are unworthy of consideration
that is illogical
Click to expand...

FatFreddy88 said:
Also, you have refused to say whether or not you agree with BetaMax which shows that you are less-than-objective and therefore unfit to analyze Apollo footage and pictures. Please say whether you agree with BetaMax.
Click to expand...

I detect a goalpost shifting...

So not only is a person who agrees with BetaMax unworthy of consideration, one who will not divulge an opinion on it also is unworthy. In fact ONLy those persons who agree with you can possibly have anything relevant to offer and can be considered worthy.

That is the pinnacle of egotistical reasoning FF88, and yet you have displayed absolutly no reason to assume you have the credibility that would warrent such a "Sheldon Cooper"-ish ego.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This isn't necessarily true as records can be altered. This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
(bottom link)

This is how pro-Apollo people lose debates. They refuse to answer questions that will make them look silly if they support the NASA version such as those about the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk. They change the subject and tap dance around until the person asking the questions gets tired, or banned and then go on as if nothing had happened. If you're an objective truth-seeker, tell us whether you agree with Betamax on the buoyant safety cable issue.

You can pretend all you want but you all look very silly when you refuse to say whether you agree with BetaMax's analysis.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8452301&postcount=8545
Click to expand...

Yet you refuse to inform me how disagreeing with BetaMax would prove fakery. Is that how YOU lose an arguement FF88?

anyway, suppertime, bye!
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's a pro-Apollo person who finally agreed with me when he saw he couldn't tire me out and bury the issue.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8141778&postcount=7982


I didn't say it was impossible. I said this particular spacewalk was faked. The evidence is too clear. Here it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

Watch it at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
(1:55 time mark)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell us if you agree with BetaMax's explanation for the buoyant safety cables. Click on this link...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8139186&postcount=7954

...and click on the bottom link of the post. Go to page 12 of that thread and read his explanation.

Part of my evidence that you people don't even believe your own arguments about Apollo is that you maintain that this spacewalk was real. This was so obviously faked that only a sophist would try to make people think it was real.

Here's my quote from post #8364 again.

Now try to infer what I think is going on here. You know I dare not say it directly.

edit-
-----------------------
Regarding the above post–photos and video can be taken by unmanned craft so your photos and video don't prove there were people at that distance from the earth.
Click to expand...

You avoided the question. You seem to want to bury it to avoid it. You think they faked it. There must have been a reason why. What is it? What is so hard about a space walk that they must have faked it? You ignored the other parts of the question. What about the square bubbles? And your mythical wave blowers?

Part of my evidence that you are not a real person and only a program is that you avoid questions you don't like, copy and paste answers to others that never really answer those either and never acknowledge the accusation that you are only a simple program. What do you say to that?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
...At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.
Click to expand...

I knew I'd regret it, but I followed the link.

I couldn't believe my eyes. A spacesuited Chinese astronaut waving a flag in what looks to me exactly unlike a medium such as water, or even air.

But if you ignore the whole sequence except for one single cherry-picked moment, then you can select the one single motion where the flag happens to fold in a way which accidentally resembles movement in a fluid.

This requires the viewer to ignore the fact that this is one single waving motion in a continuous sequence which looks utterly unlike it's underwater.

It may not be the most retarded 'evidence' presented in this dumb-packed thread, but it's a spectacular entry in the pantheon of stupid.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All you people can do now is post empty rhetoric and, when I finally disappear because I get tired or banned, you'll go on as if nothing had happened.
None of you dares to say whether you agree with BetaMax's analysis of the buoyant safety cables that I keep requesting that you do because you know he's so obviously wrong that you'll just end up looking silly if you agree with him.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8452301&postcount=8545

You can pretend all you want but you've lost this debate. Your behavior would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
Click to expand...

you keep mentioning a debating hall. You do realize that the real world is NOT a debating hall right? And if for some crazy reason it was, that it is YOU who would laughed out for
-constantly accusing those who don't agree with you of being liars,
-repeatedly claiming your detractors would be "laughed out of a debating hall when there is clearly not one here (a debating hall would require YOU to actually debate, not accuse and ignore which is all you do)
-trying to argue that because you think something is "plausible" (which you never actually show) that it means it happened,
-avoiding multiple direct questions and accusations,
-copy/pasting every argument, every time,
-claiming the "viewers" support you when it has been shown on multiple threads/forums that they clearly do not

did you have a bad experience in high school on debating team? Are you still trying to prove to the teacher that you were a good debater? Or are you just a program that must repeat the lame "laughed out of a mythical debating hall" every so often?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This isn't necessarily true as records can be altered.

[spam removed]
Click to expand...

Seven year old girl it is then.

Still no answers. Which records can be altered? The live TV records? The satellite images? Which records were altered? By whom? What were the records originally?

All you have is the base assumption that it was faked. If any evidence doesn't fit your assumption then that was also faked. Anyone who says otherwise is faking. It's a pointless self-fulfilling argument. You're refusing to debate until I agree with you? Why would I do that when I think you are utterly wrong?

I already told you I'm not playing your stupid games. I raised specific points about a specific aspect of the Apollo debate and you are trying to divert attention away from your own ignorance of that topic by throwing in red herrings and strawmen and pretty much anything you can think of.

Jarrah's little cock (and I could end that sentence right there) and bulll story about the TV transmission? That camera test broadcast (along with the others) is available in full on the youtube channel I posted. The satellite record, which didn't exist when his little gem was filmed because the two satellites I have are polar orbital and filmed the earth in segments. Jarrah clearly believes it was filmed by a person, not a probe, so how does he explain the fact that it is a perfect match for satellite images that weren't taken when the footage was recorded?

littlegem.jpg
 
FatFreddy88 said:
They refuse to answer questions........

They change the subject......
Click to expand...

The guy who made that China faked the spacewalk film is a pro-Apollo supporter. Credibility meet toilet.

How do bubbles rotate from flat to squiggly?

How does a bubble gain what looks like 4-5 times bigger size in 2 metres "rising in water"?

Show some credible evidence for the use of wave-blowers in neutral buoyancy?

You are one of the most useless debaters I have come across, you ignore so much you would get escorted out of the debating hall to the stocks.

If you're an objective truth-seeker, tell us whether you agree with Betamax on the buoyant safety cable issue.

You can pretend all you want but you all look very silly when you refuse to say whether you agree with BetaMax's analysis.
Click to expand...

What the hell is it with you and your fixations? Just because this betamax bloke totally obliterated your whole wall of spam, no need to get all "silly" about it.:rolleyes:

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This isn't necessarily true as records can be altered.
Click to expand...
Nice when you can arbitrarily redefine what is fact or not.

This also doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
Click to expand...
Since there is zero evidence for a hoax, one has to wonder what you are talking about.

They refuse to answer questions that will make them look silly if they support the NASA version such as those about the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk. They change the subject and tap dance around until the person asking the questions gets tired, or banned and then go on as if nothing had happened.
Click to expand...
Strange but you've described to a "T" what conspiracy theorists of all stripes do when they encounter facts and evidence. Maybe you can provide some examples to support your claim debunkers do the same?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
This is how pro-Apollo people lose debates. They refuse to answer questions that will make them look silly...
Click to expand...

Really, folks...is there any need to continue?...except to recommend a good mental health professional?


FF saps the life out of this place by ignoring everyone else...he isn't interested in discussion, only a monologue.

I understand now that we only impower him by responding to him...he'll never behave, so why should we be his "sounding board"


Boycot this thread...everyone...let him post to himself...it may take a while, but eventually he will get tired of talking to himself.


It's the only way.....
 
R.A.F. said:
Really, folks...is there any need to continue?...except to recommend a good mental health professional?


FF saps the life out of this place by ignoring everyone else...he isn't interested in discussion, only a monologue.

I understand now that we only impower him by responding to him...he'll never behave, so why should we be his "sounding board"


Boycot this thread...everyone...let him post to himself...it may take a while, but eventually he will get tired of talking to himself.


It's the only way.....
Click to expand...

Part of me agrees with you: let him drool away in his own little internet padded cell mumbling to himself - his whole approach to the topic, and view of the world, is so warped and beneath contempt that it is not worthy of soiling my screen with its empty rhetoric.

However one of the reasons I post on this subject, here and elsewhere, is because you can't say "I told you so" if you haven't told them so. I don't see why lies should be allowed to stand unchallenged, or why people like the fat one should be allowed to dominate a debate and achieve what they will see as a victory. Silence in the face of their lies will be seen as acknowledgement of their validity. Let them be hoist by their own petards in public. People who are neutral, or new, in the discussion should not get the impression that there is no answer to this bilge.

I will continue to weigh down the sack of their philosophy with the rocks of facts until the kitten of their existence drowns.
 
I was going to answer FF88’s post, but elected not to. Not because his post was hilarious at best, but because most of the intelligent posters have taken him apart piece by piece.

There are a number of posters on this forum that have an in depth knowledge of aeronautics. Some are pilots, some are not. But one does not have to be a pilot to have knowledge of aeronautics, or space flight.

Yet Fat Freddy thinks that all of these knowledgeable posters are disinfo agents or liars. Why is that? What proof has he offered that would make his point? If this thread occurred before the existence of You Tube, FF88 wouldn’t be able to post anything.

BTW FF88, do you have any experience in the field of aeronautics or space flight? If you don’t, I hope you won’t mind if I listen to those who do.
 
Yet you refuse to inform me how disagreeing with BetaMax would prove fakery. Is that how YOU lose an arguement FF88?
Click to expand...
I never said it did. NASA's official position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real. If it was obviously faked, shouldn't we wonder about NASA? Also, the Chinese spacewalk makes a good objectivity test. The proof that it was faked is so clear that anyone who tries to obfuscate it or refuses to address the issue is obviously less-than-objective and therefore unfit to analyze the Apollo footage and pictures. That pretty much covers all of the pro-Apollo posters here.

What about the square bubbles?
Click to expand...
It looks like a bubble to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(2:05 time mark)
The viewers can decide for themselves. It slides along the visor and goes upward at the exact point a bubble would.

And your mythical wave blowers?
Click to expand...
Just because nothing comes up when I goggle "Wave blowers" doesn't mean they're mythical. You haven't proven they don't exist. Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW__oOciq2c

Anyway, there is some super-clear proof such as the buoyant safety cables. It's such clear proof that you people all refuse to address it.

But if you ignore the whole sequence except for one single cherry-picked moment, then you can select the one single motion where the flag happens to fold in a way which accidentally resembles movement in a fluid.

This requires the viewer to ignore the fact that this is one single waving motion in a continuous sequence which looks utterly unlike it's underwater.
Click to expand...
Some of the footage was sped-up. The movement you say is not consistent with movemet is water would look consistent if slowed-down.

Which records can be altered? The live TV records? The satellite images? Which records were altered? By whom? What were the records originally?
Click to expand...
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(exerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
-----------------------------------------------------

My not having access to classified info doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. The government can manipulate any data it wants to so any records saying such-and-such a thing happened cannot be used as proof of anything. You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but what you're actually saying is pretty lame.

The guy who made that China faked the spacewalk film is a pro-Apollo supporter. Credibility meet toilet.
Click to expand...
I addressed that issue at the bottom of this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8166034&postcount=8032

How does a bubble gain what looks like 4-5 times bigger size in 2 metres "rising in water"?
Click to expand...
As bubbles get closer to the camera, the look bigger. They also grow in size as water pressure decreases. Let's hear your analysis of the buoyant safety cables.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It looks like a bubble to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(2:05 time mark)
The viewers can decide for themselves. It slides along the visor and goes upward at the exact point a bubble would.
Click to expand...
Those viewers that supposedly support you but have been proven to not exist?

In your SAME video those "viewers" can see these "bubbles" take on square and rectangular shapes. Nice how your own source shows you're wrong. Nice how you cherry-pick what you wanted to see.

FatFreddy88 said:
Just because nothing comes up when I goggle "Wave blowers" doesn't mean they're mythical. You haven't proven they don't exist. Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW__oOciq2c
Click to expand...
YOU haven't proven they do. Do you know anything about the burden of proof? Somebody's homemade toy on youtube is not proof they have EVER been used anywhere else.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
NASA's official position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real. If it was obviously faked, shouldn't we wonder about NASA?
Click to expand...

Truly pathetic circular reasoning. The spacewalk was not faked. The flag spinning unrestricted in a vacuum is not even close to being possible AT ANY SPEED in water.

Also, the Chinese spacewalk makes a good objectivity test. The proof that it was faked is so clear that anyone who tries to obfuscate it or refuses to address the issue is obviously less-than-objective and therefore unfit to analyze the Apollo footage and pictures. That pretty much covers all of the pro-Apollo posters here.
Click to expand...

More idiotic circular reasoning, especially in view of your "analysis" of why the guy who made the video is pro-Apollo - "he was got at":rolleyes: Your response would create guffaws of laughter from the people who decide whether you are eligible to be even let in to the debating hall!

It looks like a bubble to me.
Click to expand...

bubgif.gif


Orly:boxedin:

The viewers can decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

They all think it's a piece of space debris, maybe a piece of ice.

It slides along the visor and goes upward at the exact point a bubble would.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, it comes towards the camera and doesn't go straight up as a bubble would.

Just because nothing comes up when I goggle "Wave blowers" doesn't mean they're mythical. You haven't proven they don't exist. Check out this video...snipped
Click to expand...

Ridiculous I don't need to prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist! They don't exist because they aren't even theoretically feasible. Currents in water don't magically stop moving when they find something. Using them as a means to support is just moronic when there is a proven method widely used already.

Negative buoyancy is performed with weights. Using imaginary crap to do something that wouldn't even work is patently absurd.

Anyway, there is some super-clear proof such as the buoyant safety cables. It's such clear proof that you people all refuse to address it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to address. Things in freefall are subject to a freedom not afforded with gravity. The cable goes in all sorts of directions and you obviously "don't believe your own argument"TM
Some of the footage was sped-up. The movement you say is not consistent with movemet is water would look consistent if slowed-down.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Some of us check things like that out. You make all these claims, yet never put video up to demonstrate it. You are lying.

My not having access to classified info doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. The government can manipulate any data it wants to so any records saying such-and-such a thing happened cannot be used as proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Ebil gubmint and magic all encompassing pwoof noted.

You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but what you're actually saying is pretty lame.
Click to expand...

You demonstrate why conspiracy theorists are regarded as complete nutjobs with your inability to see anything that contradicts you.

As bubbles get closer to the camera, the look bigger. They also grow in size as water pressure decreases.
Click to expand...

They would grow in size very little over the course of such a movement. The fact the object is coming towards the camera is more than proof enough that it isn't in water. Let alone the flag spinning without the water flapping it about and rippling it and totally unrestricted.

Let's hear your analysis of the buoyant safety cables.
Click to expand...

Shape memory is a good explanation, having a buoyant steel cable in water in the first place is a truly pathetic claim. Not one single website, scientific article or actual working model supports this stupid wave-blowers idea. Do you know why?

Because he made it up to explain things that made no sense in water. The flag though, closes the case. There are some thing so clear that even the worst sophist(you) and the worst obuscator(you) cannot hide.

Anyway there are a million reasons to support Apollo landing on the Moon, and not one single piece of evidence, that holds up to scruitiny, that says otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
I just decided for myself: It looks like a flake of debris, not a bubble.


No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...



I disagree it looks more like a a flakette of stuff instead of a flake of debris, but certainly not a bubble at all

I just decided that for myself.....
 
Post 8523, rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/cosmored.

You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
These are pretty lame questions which are hardly worth the time, as if I had access to classified info. Are you saying it was impossible? Are you saying NASA didn't have the capability to do all of that? If they had the capability, it's plausible
Click to expand...
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.
 
LSSBB said:
sts60 said:
Post 8523, rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/cosmored.

You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
Click to expand...
I believe if FF88 would just answer this question, he would appear engaged and honest. Until then, evasive.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.

sts60 said:
Post 8523, rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88/cosmored.

You said you live in Madrid, so you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
Click to expand...
 
FatFreddy88 said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
KA9Q said:
Any competent engineer can examine them and see that the designs are perfectly viable. I have. So have many others.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You can pretend all you want but you all look very silly when you refuse to say whether you agree with BetaMax's analysis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
KA9Q said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the issue of space radiation. They obviously had the capability to send unmanned probes far into space.
Click to expand...
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.

FatFreddy88 said:
The theory
Click to expand...
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.
FatFreddy88 said:
is that they had to fake it because they couldn't protect humans from space radiation
Click to expand...
(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.
FatFreddy88 said:
although they were able to build unmanned probes that were radiation-proof.
Click to expand...
Wrong. No space vehicle is "radiation-proof". Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

FatFreddy88 said:
Click on the bottom link in this post to see some alternative info on space radiation.<link-spam deleted>
Click to expand...
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?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I never said it did. NASA's official position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real. If it was obviously faked, shouldn't we wonder about NASA? Also, the Chinese spacewalk makes a good objectivity test. The proof that it was faked is so clear that anyone who tries to obfuscate it or refuses to address the issue is obviously less-than-objective and therefore unfit to analyze the Apollo footage and pictures. That pretty much covers all of the pro-Apollo posters here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You're ignoring the issue of space radiation. They obviously had the capability to send unmanned probes far into space.
Click to expand...
State YOUR case for this and back it up with scientific study.

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 to expand...

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')
(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.
Click to expand...

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:
FatFreddy88 said:
It looks like a bubble to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(2:05 time mark)
The viewers can decide for themselves. It slides along the visor and goes upward at the exact point a bubble would.
Click to expand...

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.


My not having access to classified info doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. The government can manipulate any data it wants to so any records saying such-and-such a thing happened cannot be used as proof of anything. You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but what you're actually saying is pretty lame.
Click to expand...
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:
sts60 said:
...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.
...
Click to expand...

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?
 
000063 said:
Did Freddy actually provide evidence for the existence of such data,
Click to expand...
No. He provided a link to a link to a link...
000063 said:
or was it merely another unbacked claim made to patch holes in his argument?
Click to expand...
... 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".)
 
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.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom