Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 217

Thread: The ISS proves The Moon Hoax.

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    725
    Bump.

    This thread is moving very fast, so Dionysus, you may have overlooked my post, with its questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Again, thanks.

    You mean this one?

    However, when you are able to, I would like you to post details of your primary sources (including, where available, URLs) for these of your claims:
    1) "we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon"


    If so, may I suggest that you make use of the "quote" function of this site? I feel it will reduce the number of times I have to ask you for clarification.


    If so, then you did not answer my question.

    First, I asked about primary sources (not any old source). Second, I asked for details of your primary sources (plural).

    Please answer all three of my questions.
    Iím looking forward to reading your answers.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    When viewed from the north pole it is immediately obvious that the VAB cannot be skirted.Attachment 24188
    When viewed from a side view then it is obvious that the angle of inclination determines the path through the VAB regions.Attachment 24189

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ...I can see one probable bit of idiocy...
    Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

    Thread reopened, with one participant having been suspended. Note to all: be polite. Loaded words such as "idiocy" are not polite.
    Last edited by Swift; 2019-May-17 at 12:28 PM. Reason: fixed formating
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I did and reject it as government sponsored propaganda.
    We have a problem. You appear to be using information that was supplied to the general public by an arm of the U.S. government, NASA, this being the sum of radiation data known about the Van Allen belts.

    Yet you also seem to say that NASA-produced evidence that crewed Apollo spacecraft crossed through the Van Allen belts is government-sponsored propaganda.

    In other words, you appear to be saying that the same agency you believe and trust is also the same agency you do not believe and do not trust.

    Is this correct?
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    ó Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,886
    More to the point, the same agencies (NASA et al.) that have supplied the public with information on the radiation in the Van Allen belt are, as you appear to be saying, the same agencies that ignored this information and have lied about humans crossing the belts.

    Is this correct?
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    ó Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    When viewed from the north pole it is immediately obvious that the VAB cannot be skirted.Attachment 24188
    When viewed from a side view then it is obvious that the angle of inclination determines the path through the VAB regions.Attachment 24189
    You have to attach images that can be viewed, prior to any discussions.

    Your representations so far have not been correct. Yes when viewed from the side an orbit will be a straight line, however when traced onto a three dimensional object, that straight line becomes a curved line, as the wiki link I posted.

    By the way did you recompute the amount of radiation receive by an Apollo given a better understanding how long it was in the 10^4 concentration?

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Bump.

    This thread is moving very fast, so Dionysus, you may have overlooked my post, with its questions.


    I’m looking forward to reading your answers.
    The full width and breadth of the internet is my source. I ask you to be specific when you request for references. Asking me to provide my sources is much to vague to address.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    More to the point, the same agencies (NASA et al.) that have supplied the public with information on the radiation in the Van Allen belt are, as you appear to be saying, the same agencies that ignored this information and have lied about humans crossing the belts.

    Is this correct?
    In the same way the government lied about many things, this is no different. The way you catch both a fish and a government liar is by the mouth. Until the advent of the information age the NASA's data wasn't readily available, and it was fairly esoteric. We live in a whole new world today.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-17 at 02:06 PM.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You have to attach images that can be viewed, prior to any discussions.

    Your representations so far have not been correct. Yes when viewed from the side an orbit will be a straight line, however when traced onto a three dimensional object, that straight line becomes a curved line, as the wiki link I posted.

    By the way did you recompute the amount of radiation receive by an Apollo given a better understanding how long it was in the 10^4 concentration?
    I am confused. The quote above has the attachments. Cannot they be opened? I simply took the least amount of proton flux in the entire VAB and used it to demonstrate that no matter the path through the VAB the exposure would be magnitudes higher than claimed by the Apollo missions.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,350
    This is how you dodge the VAB.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	apollo-path.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	207.6 KB 
ID:	24190

  11. #131
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Dionysus

    A possible reason for a lack of enthusiasm to debate this is that there was a very, very long discussion along these exact same lines (VAB, Orion, radiation, etc) a year ago (LINK). If you are interested, there is an extensive discussion of the three-dimensional shape of the VAB and the differing trajectories of Apollo and Orion.

    A question for you: What would convince you that men landed on the Moon? If the answer is "nothing", I also suspect that your oft-repeated arguments will convince no one here, and this won't be much of a discussion (but that last bit is just my opinion).
    All we would have to do is to repeat the feat with fairly similar equipment and results. In 1969 we lacked the technology to validate the claim but the information age is upon us. It would be simple to redo that which has been done. Just do it!

  12. #132
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    This is how you dodge the VAB.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	apollo-path.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	207.6 KB 
ID:	24190
    The problem is that is a fantasy and not an actuality but I like the attempt. The data is available and the path the Apollo mission took was through the VAB and not above it. They flew along the lunar plane to reach the moon which is approximately 30 degrees to the equator and roughly 18 degrees to the center of the VAB because of the magnetic offset. Just because you want it to be so does not make it a reality.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    This is how you dodge the VAB.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	apollo-path.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	207.6 KB 
ID:	24190
    The drawing is impressive and I commend you if it is your personal work. I like it. Too bad it is incorrect.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    All we would have to do is to repeat the feat with fairly similar equipment and results. In 1969 we lacked the technology to validate the claim but the information age is upon us. It would be simple to redo that which has been done. Just do it!
    Do you believe the Concorde never existed because you can no longer fly a commercial supersonic jet?

    Do you believe in any historic event? We cannot repeat the D-Day landings, for example. Do you therefore not believe they happened? If your answer is "no, I believe in historic events", then what is your standard of proof for them? How is that standard different than just repeating the event?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #135
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    I look at the thread referenced at the beginning of this thread and I agree with the basic assessment that the only place in the known universe where exposure rates as low as Apollo 13 received is behind the shield of the Van Allen belt. If a spaceship was outside the VAB it's exposure rate would be higher than .22 mgy/day simply because GCR is higher than .22 mgy/day. The Mars mission proves this.
    Last edited by Dionysus; 2019-May-17 at 02:22 PM.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Do you believe the Concorde never existed because you can no longer fly a commercial supersonic jet?

    Do you believe in any historic event? We cannot repeat the D-Day landings, for example. Do you therefore not believe they happened? If your answer is "no, I believe in historic events", then what is your standard of proof for them? How is that standard different than just repeating the event?
    It is one thing to deny history and another to deny a historical claim. There is no single act that occurred on D-day that has not or could not be replicated. It is unrealistic to imagine all the events that occurred historically to be repeated.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The drawing is impressive and I commend you if it is your personal work. I like it. Too bad it is incorrect.
    Dionysus

    OK, now I am putting on my moderator hat.

    That answer will not do. You cannot simply say it is incorrect. And it is not up to anyone else to prove it correct, though multiple people have pointed you to sources. You are trying to overturn a massive amount of science and history; by our rules it is completely your responsibility to demonstrate your point. You will demonstrate how it is incorrect or you will retract your statement or we will consider closing this thread (since this seems to be the heart of your idea).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    In the same way the government lied about many things, this is no different. The way you catch both a fish and a government liar is by the mouth. Until the advent of the information age the NASA's data wasn't readily available, an it was fairly esoteric. We live in a whole new world today.
    You did not answer my question. Dodging the issue implies your argument is weak. Do you trust NASA's detailed information on radiation in the Van Allen belts, yes or no? If you do trust NASA's radiation information, why do you think NASA is also lying about flight through the same belts? Do you believe that scientists and researchers knew from 1958 onward that travel through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous and required careful planning and shielding?

    If I were to offer links and information that disputed your thesis, would you believe the information provided?
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    ó Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  19. #139
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Swift, It seems to me that you obfuscate and fail to address the issue at hand.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    725
    Thanks for responding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The full width and breadth of the internet is my source. I ask you to be specific when you request for references. Asking me to provide my sources is much to vague to address.
    Allow me, then, to clarify.

    I will do so by focussing on just one of my three questions.

    To recap: you claimed (source) "Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon."

    And I asked you about this claim (source): "I would like you to post details of your primary sources (including, where available, URLs) for these of your claims:
    1) "we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon"
    "

    To which you responded (source): "please consider this article: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...rst-spacecraft"

    As it was quite unclear to me what you meant, I asked you (source): "May I ask, what is this in reference to? Specifically, which of my three questions is it intended to answer (or address)? In any case, do I read your post correctly, that the content of webpage the URL refers to is - to you - a primary source?"

    And you were kind enough to reply as follows (source): "This is in response to the question about radioactive lunar surface. No it is not my only source."

    As this is, to me, very clearly not an answer to the question I asked, my response was rather lengthy (source); the key part is: "First, I asked about primary sources (not any old source). Second, I asked for details of your primary sources (plural)."

    Your response (quoted above) suggests, to me, that (perhaps) that you do not make distinctions among your sources; specifically that, for you, "primary source(s)" is meaningless.

    If so, please confirm.

    If not, please cite your primary source(s) (for your specific claim, "Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon.").
    Last edited by Jean Tate; 2019-May-17 at 02:29 PM.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,751
    I'm going to repeat a question that definitely got missed--Dionysus, what would convince you that you're wrong? What would convince you that the Apollo missions happened as described?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,886
    A consistent refusal to directly answer questions about a thesis means the thesis is indefensible.

    We have been arguing over whether the parrot is dead or merely pining for the fjords. The parrot is dead, and no amount of argument will restore it. My condolences.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    ó Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  23. #143
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    You did not answer my question. Dodging the issue implies your argument is weak. Do you trust NASA's detailed information on radiation in the Van Allen belts, yes or no? If you do trust NASA's radiation information, why do you think NASA is also lying about flight through the same belts? Do you believe that scientists and researchers knew from 1958 onward that travel through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous and required careful planning and shielding?

    If I were to offer links and information that disputed your thesis, would you believe the information provided?
    I believe the data that NASA produced is valid. I believe that it was elementary during the sixties and yet to be fleshed out. I personally think their knowledge of the danger is the reason of the hoax.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon. <snip>
    (my bold)

    Dionysus, in your OP, you made several, apparently quite precise and well-defined, statements about "radiation" and "radioactivity". Yet in this post of yours (part of which I am quoting), you do not even say what you mean by "radiation" and "radioactivity", much less provide any quantification.

    Would you please clarify? Specifically, what do you mean by "radioactivity" and "space radiation" (in this post of yours)? Can you quantify either? I so, please do so.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Dionysus

    OK, now I am putting on my moderator hat.

    That answer will not do. You cannot simply say it is incorrect. And it is not up to anyone else to prove it correct, though multiple people have pointed you to sources. You are trying to overturn a massive amount of science and history; by our rules it is completely your responsibility to demonstrate your point. You will demonstrate how it is incorrect or you will retract your statement or we will consider closing this thread (since this seems to be the heart of your idea).
    I have stated on several occasions why it is incorrect. The VAB is not centered on the geographical equator rather it is centered on the Geomagnetic equator. The second is the the lunar flight path is not arbitrary. It is designed to fly along the lunar plane (Approximately 30 degrees to the equator) to intercept the moon and reduce the fuel consumption. As a consequence the path through the VAB is roughly 18 degrees off center of the VAB. That is why your drawing is inaccurate.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    You did not answer my question. Dodging the issue implies your argument is weak. Do you trust NASA's detailed information on radiation in the Van Allen belts, yes or no? If you do trust NASA's radiation information, why do you think NASA is also lying about flight through the same belts? Do you believe that scientists and researchers knew from 1958 onward that travel through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous and required careful planning and shielding?

    If I were to offer links and information that disputed your thesis, would you believe the information provided?
    In a word yes. I do not disagree wit the data, in general, I disagree with your interpretation of the data.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Thanks for responding.


    Allow me, then, to clarify.

    I will do so by focussing on just one of my three questions.

    To recap: you claimed (source) "Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon."

    And I asked you about this claim (source): "I would like you to post details of your primary sources (including, where available, URLs) for these of your claims:
    1) "we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon"
    "

    To which you responded (source): "please consider this article: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...rst-spacecraft"

    As it was quite unclear to me what you meant, I asked you (source): "May I ask, what is this in reference to? Specifically, which of my three questions is it intended to answer (or address)? In any case, do I read your post correctly, that the content of webpage the URL refers to is - to you - a primary source?"

    And you were kind enough to reply as follows (source): "This is in response to the question about radioactive lunar surface. No it is not my only source."

    As this is, to me, very clearly not an answer to the question I asked, my response was rather lengthy (source); the key part is: "First, I asked about primary sources (not any old source). Second, I asked for details of your primary sources (plural)."

    Your response (quoted above) suggests, to me, that (perhaps) that you do not make distinctions among your sources; specifically that, for you, "primary source(s)" is meaningless.

    If so, please confirm.

    If not, please cite your primary source(s) (for your specific claim, "Strange as it seems, we didn't realize the surface of the moon is so radioactive that it raises space radiation above background in orbit around the moon.").
    What we have is a failure to communicate. The article clearly points out that it had been determined that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that it raised radiation levels 30 to 40 percent. Did you read the article?

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I have stated on several occasions why it is incorrect. The VAB is not centered on the geographical equator rather it is centered on the Geomagnetic equator. The second is the the lunar flight path is not arbitrary. It is designed to fly along the lunar plane (Approximately 30 degrees to the equator) to intercept the moon and reduce the fuel consumption. As a consequence the path through the VAB is roughly 18 degrees off center of the VAB. That is why your drawing is inaccurate.
    1] The diagram does show the path as being 30 degrees from the equator.

    2] How do you get ~18 degrees? From 30-11? You cannot simply subtract one from the other. You do not know the axis of one ellipse to the other. If aligned, they might subtract, but if opposed, for all you know they might add, which would give you an angle between path and VAB of 30+11 = 41. Or anything in between.

    But you did not account for this.

    Question: How is the diagram wrong?
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-May-17 at 02:55 PM.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I am confused. The quote above has the attachments. Cannot they be opened? I simply took the least amount of proton flux in the entire VAB and used it to demonstrate that no matter the path through the VAB the exposure would be magnitudes higher than claimed by the Apollo missions.
    Yes it could not be opened, at least by me. But that did not answer the question I put forth, have you recalculated the amount of radiation received from the lower band with the correct time exposure of 2o minutes as depicted in the drawing you posted?

  30. #150
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    I'm going to repeat a question that definitely got missed--Dionysus, what would convince you that you're wrong? What would convince you that the Apollo missions happened as described?
    I did respond to the question in post #132, I think but I will repeat it. I would be convinced it had occurred if they could do it using the same equipment with the same results today. I do not think it is possible but I could change my mind if they repeated the magic act while it was being watched.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •