Is NASA Lying about the Levels and Nature of Space Radiation?
- Thread starter FatFreddy
- Start date
- Status
Another stock spam response - you haven't done any research, you just repeat your wall of spam. You have not one original post in you. That is so disturbing. The Apollo 15 video shows footprints as he walks around the flag 40 seconds to 47. The stationary flag.
Coward. Just itemise 10 of the undebunkable points. In your next response. The viewers re waiting!
They're too far away to see any detail.
The photos of footprints with detail aren't seen being made. The footprints we see being made are too far away for us to see any detail. Watch the video in my last post.
What's the matter with this list?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
http://www.hasaan.com/2012/08/debunking-moon-conspiracy-theories.html
DECISIVELY Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories: In memory of Neil Armstrong
Friday, August 31, 2012
Left-to-right: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin - the crew of Apollo 11.
Introduction: 25th August, 2012 marked the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to ever set foot on the moon back in 1969. This man, along with his "Apollo 11" crew-members, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, is among the true heroes of the scientific era.
However, owing to the work of several notable conspiracy theorists, there exists a huge mob of people that believes that none of the moon landings the Apollo missions were real. To uphold their claims, they present a variety of arguments, ranging in quality from utter dumb to moderately technical - however all of these arguments can be proved false with a little logic and scientific knowledge. The theories are based on insufficient knowledge.
Since I have always been an astronomy freak and can't see one great hero presented in such bad light, I decided to write a huge article debunking all the major theories in one place - a service rendered in the honour of Neil Armstrong.
DECISIVELY Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories: In memory of Neil Armstrong
Friday, August 31, 2012
Left-to-right: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin - the crew of Apollo 11.
Introduction: 25th August, 2012 marked the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to ever set foot on the moon back in 1969. This man, along with his "Apollo 11" crew-members, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, is among the true heroes of the scientific era.
However, owing to the work of several notable conspiracy theorists, there exists a huge mob of people that believes that none of the moon landings the Apollo missions were real. To uphold their claims, they present a variety of arguments, ranging in quality from utter dumb to moderately technical - however all of these arguments can be proved false with a little logic and scientific knowledge. The theories are based on insufficient knowledge.
Since I have always been an astronomy freak and can't see one great hero presented in such bad light, I decided to write a huge article debunking all the major theories in one place - a service rendered in the honour of Neil Armstrong.
Fine detail has no relevance at all. We know three things for a fact:
1. Dry sand takes no prints whatsoever.
2. Wet sand does, fine detail or otherwise.
3. When you kick wet sand it clumps.
From that we can deduce that the Apollo footage is not dry sand because we see prints being made all the time, it cannot be wet sand because we see fine dust being kicked all the time. Your crap theory is busted.
You mean the wall of spam where you repeat the entire post without removing anything, effectively ignoring every single response ever made? What's wrong with this response:
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
Let's have the next spam by numbers post where you ignore the entire blog and original posts from the political forum and offer unsubstantiated ad-hominems about the author because he doesn't believe the complete crap about China and swimming pools. Everybody knows why you can't respond to any of it.
Now stop being a cowardly truther and itemise your top ten un-debunkable "anomalies". It's perfectly simple, you keep claiming it's done and dusted. Ante up!
This page doesn't address the clearest hoax proof such as the flag moving when the astronaut trots by it without touching it*.
http://www.hasaan.com/2012/08/debunking-moon-conspiracy-theories.html
The people who try to obfuscate the moon hoax proof almost never address this because it's too clear to obfuscate. They don't want people to even see it.
MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
You're not taking in any of the viewers who take the time to watch the video.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
I don't see how it can get more itemized than that.
*
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html
http://www.hasaan.com/2012/08/debunking-moon-conspiracy-theories.html
The people who try to obfuscate the moon hoax proof almost never address this because it's too clear to obfuscate. They don't want people to even see it.
That's all addressed in this video.
MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
You're not taking in any of the viewers who take the time to watch the video.
His explanations of the waving flag were debunked in the footnoted thread below. Be sure to look at post #12. Once his main point has been shown to be sophistry, what's the point of addressing every other point?
It's already itemized in post #1 of this thread.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
I don't see how it can get more itemized than that.
*
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html
No. Next question?
So what, you haven't proven the cause was air. People still await your "atmosphere explanation" eagerly. We all know it will never arrive because you are a dishonest troofer.
How does air move something 4 feet away when wind tunnel and wave dynamics show quite clearly that air is pushed a matter of inches?
Didn't you do the easy experiment? Wet one hand and bring the other hand towards it very fast. When it get extremely close, you'll feel the draft. You're busted, but are too dishonest to admit it.
What proof? There is nothing in your pathetic crappy spam list that hasn't been debunked to death.
I watched the video and you are lying, summarise what he says then indicate where he says it. Go on, type something unique that isn't 100 times repeated spam by numbers.
You are a liar and a persistent one. Explain exactly how it was "debunked". I looked at post 12, so what. Are you really that dumb that you think your opinion is proof? You have no experience of any of this. You are as hopeless a troofer as there could be. You know nothing, it's all lifted from someone else and that is why you can't us your own words.
None of it is itemised. It is a all of repeated spam. For somebody who claims to teach English, you should at least know what the word itemise means!!
1. xxxxxxx
2. yyyyyy
It's perfectly simple, are you afraid that once you show your hand it will be ripped to shreds?
List your best 10 items of evidence with a small explanation. Do it in your next post and stop being a big coward.
I assure you that you look very silly when you ignore this itemized list of anomalies...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
...and insist that I provide an itemized list of anomalies as if I hadn't already provided one.
The viewers are watching and judging.
I find it almost beyond belief that you think viewers are thinking, "Gee whiz, that FatFreddy has a point." That idea is almost more absurd than your belief in a moon landing hoax.
Assurance from you is like someone giving me an ash tray for my motorbike. You are cornered and we both know it. You are as useless on this subject as you have always been. In the 10 years you have been actively spamming the entire interwebs you have never ever bothered to educate yourself on any of the subjects relating to this. I doubt whether you have ever watched anything not on that moronic temple of stupid known as youtube.
You gloss over entire points with your pathetic and dismissive, "yeah, it's in my video" crap. You do this every time. You are a known coward:
Fine detail has no relevance at all. We know three things for a fact:
1. Dry sand takes no prints whatsoever.
2. Wet sand does, fine detail or otherwise.
3. When you kick wet sand it clumps.
From that we can deduce that the Apollo footage is not dry sand because we see prints being made all the time, it cannot be wet sand because we see fine dust being kicked all the time. Your crap theory is busted.
EXPLAIN this in your own words. I'll just keep posting it until you answer it properly.
Itemise in your own words the top 10 undebunkable "hoax anomalies". You keep making your moronic claim that it is proven when any true thinking person laughs at idiots who can't see how it has been debunked. You cowardly dismiss presented debunks to you by claiming opposing views represent no credibility.
Cowardly troll, you have ulterior motives, nobody can be this persistently obtuse and stupid.
you caused crickets..
i am sure most will not prefer this submission of mine but i think it is something to at least look at-- it may catch ones interest:
Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3797808/
Aliens On The Moon The Truth Exposed 2014
Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3797808/
Aliens On The Moon The Truth Exposed 2014
Edont Knoff
Registered Senior Member
I found this page: http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/strahlenbelastung/index_strahlungsguertel.htm
(Sorry, german source, google translate maybe?)
There it is said that the radiation dose of the moon travelers summed up to 9mSv.
This dose means 0.5 additional deaths average per 1000 affected people.
So yes, it is dangerous to pass the radiation belts. It can be deadly - not imemdiately, but it raises the risk to die of cancer or cell damage later on. But a group of 5 astronauts might be lucky enough not to see a single death.
So even if the radiation regulations were changed to allow flight, the dose was not aoutright deadly. The surviving astronauts surely can count as support to this finding.
(Sorry, german source, google translate maybe?)
There it is said that the radiation dose of the moon travelers summed up to 9mSv.
This dose means 0.5 additional deaths average per 1000 affected people.
So yes, it is dangerous to pass the radiation belts. It can be deadly - not imemdiately, but it raises the risk to die of cancer or cell damage later on. But a group of 5 astronauts might be lucky enough not to see a single death.
So even if the radiation regulations were changed to allow flight, the dose was not aoutright deadly. The surviving astronauts surely can count as support to this finding.
Watch this video from the beginning to the 4:55 time mark.
Ha Ha Ha We Went to the Moon....No More Proof Needed than This !!!
They make a good point. Before Apollo the official stand on the Van Allen belts was that they were dangerous. During Apollo they said they weren't that dangerous. Now they say they are dangerous again.
Any objective person with common sense would be suspicious on seeing this. What do you pro-Apollo people say?
Ha Ha Ha We Went to the Moon....No More Proof Needed than This !!!
They make a good point. Before Apollo the official stand on the Van Allen belts was that they were dangerous. During Apollo they said they weren't that dangerous. Now they say they are dangerous again.
Any objective person with common sense would be suspicious on seeing this. What do you pro-Apollo people say?
I did. First mistake - they describe the Kapton tape used to hold the insulation in place as "Scotch tape."
Clearly no engineers were involved in the making of that video.
You've been had again, Freddy.
I'd like to hear you address the radiation issue.
The so called radiation issue has been addressed many times as you should and do know. Otherwise I don't think anyone is really prepared to jump through your hoops, taking in consideration your love for conspiracy, and the tin foil hat brigade.
I'd like you to address that issue[my answer that is]
- Status