View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 07:05

Arouet wrote:Episode 2 didn't hold much of interest. The only relevant part was where he seemed to suggest that the Apollo must have gone through the highest radiation point. But I'm going to hold off on this, since I'm assuming he'll elaborate later.

Episdoe 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDS ... =endscreen

Strange episode: he spends a few minutes chronicling space missions that would have reached the 500km beginning of the Van Allen Belt. he seems to think it significant that less than 10% did. He doesn't say why he thinks its significant.

He brings up an apparent contradiction by phil plait. He refers to whether the hubble goes through the van allen belt (the low point of the south atlantic anomaly). White says hubble couldn't go through the SAA, being at 250km above the earth. He says that NASA puts the anomaly at 500km and therefore Plait must be wrong.

I decided to look it up. According to wikipedia, the SAA dips to an altitude of 200km (124mi):

The Van Allen radiation belts are symmetric about the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's rotational axis by an angle of ~11 degrees. The intersection between the magnetic and rotation axes of the Earth is located not at the Earth's centre, but some 500 kilometres (300 mi) further North. Because of this asymmetry, the inner Van Allen belt is closest to the Earth's surface over the south Atlantic ocean where it dips down to 200km (124mi) altitude, and farthest from the Earth's surface over the north Pacific ocean.[2]


It seems that White may have been mixing up his stats.

The wiki article cites this report: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 6/25/text/ which refers to hubble not taking pictures while it goes through the SAA.

"Achieving 100,000 exposures this soon is really a remarkable achievement," Williams says, "especially when you take into account Hubble's low-Earth orbit and that it cannot observe for about 50 percent of each orbit because of the Earth's occultation (when Earth blocks Hubble's view) and the South Atlantic Anomaly (a high radiation belt through which Hubble cannot observe).


A google search shows many sites referring to hubble going through the SAA.

White makes a big deal of quoting from the Goddard site in his video, as his basis for NASA saying the SAA would be higher than the shuttles go. I don't know what link he was on, but I found the following:

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat ... _saad.html
The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, the large red area in the image) is a dip in the Earth's magnetic field which allows cosmic rays, and charged particles to reach lower into the atmosphere. This interferes with communication with satellites, aircraft, and the Space Shuttle. While there are theories as to why this occurs, the geologic origin is not yet known.


They refer to it interfering with aircraft let alone shuttles!

Perhaps White corrects himself in later videos? But he seems to just plain be wrong here. It is difficult to see how he makes this mistake, given how many sources there seem to be out there describing the contours of the SAA. Hubble seems to unquestionably go through the SAA about 10 times a day or so. And other craft have reported doing so as well.

Misha, Syd: can you shed some light here? Am I missing something?

hmm, I don't know, maybe you should ask Jarrah all those questions? He's on FB and gmail. I can't answer for him.

I think he's trying to make a point about radio interference when passing through the SAA? That Hubble goes through it as an unmanned craft isn't a big deal, except it might interfere with comms, I don't know.

He's doing a B.Sc. in astrophysics now, so it's important he get his facts straight. I'm pretty sure he'll correct his account if something isn't quite right.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 07:09

Arouet wrote:Episode 2 didn't hold much of interest. The only relevant part was where he seemed to suggest that the Apollo must have gone through the highest radiation point. But I'm going to hold off on this, since I'm assuming he'll elaborate later.

Episdoe 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDS ... =endscreen

Strange episode: he spends a few minutes chronicling space missions that would have reached the 500km beginning of the Van Allen Belt. he seems to think it significant that less than 10% did. He doesn't say why he thinks its significant.

He brings up an apparent contradiction by phil plait. He refers to whether the hubble goes through the van allen belt (the low point of the south atlantic anomaly). White says hubble couldn't go through the SAA, being at 250km above the earth. He says that NASA puts the anomaly at 500km and therefore Plait must be wrong.

I decided to look it up. According to wikipedia, the SAA dips to an altitude of 200km (124mi):

The Van Allen radiation belts are symmetric about the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's rotational axis by an angle of ~11 degrees. The intersection between the magnetic and rotation axes of the Earth is located not at the Earth's centre, but some 500 kilometres (300 mi) further North. Because of this asymmetry, the inner Van Allen belt is closest to the Earth's surface over the south Atlantic ocean where it dips down to 200km (124mi) altitude, and farthest from the Earth's surface over the north Pacific ocean.[2]


It seems that White may have been mixing up his stats.

The wiki article cites this report: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 6/25/text/ which refers to hubble not taking pictures while it goes through the SAA.

"Achieving 100,000 exposures this soon is really a remarkable achievement," Williams says, "especially when you take into account Hubble's low-Earth orbit and that it cannot observe for about 50 percent of each orbit because of the Earth's occultation (when Earth blocks Hubble's view) and the South Atlantic Anomaly (a high radiation belt through which Hubble cannot observe).


A google search shows many sites referring to hubble going through the SAA.

White makes a big deal of quoting from the Goddard site in his video, as his basis for NASA saying the SAA would be higher than the shuttles go. I don't know what link he was on, but I found the following:

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat ... _saad.html
The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, the large red area in the image) is a dip in the Earth's magnetic field which allows cosmic rays, and charged particles to reach lower into the atmosphere. This interferes with communication with satellites, aircraft, and the Space Shuttle. While there are theories as to why this occurs, the geologic origin is not yet known.


They refer to it interfering with aircraft let alone shuttles!

Perhaps White corrects himself in later videos? But he seems to just plain be wrong here. It is difficult to see how he makes this mistake, given how many sources there seem to be out there describing the contours of the SAA. Hubble seems to unquestionably go through the SAA about 10 times a day or so. And other craft have reported doing so as well.

Misha, Syd: can you shed some light here? Am I missing something?


Arouet, I think it is best you go through the whole series before arriving at questions. White has used multiple sources and fact checked with others against NASA's Apollo record. I really wish you guys would get those books I have mentioned. I think you could weigh the arguments on this far better having the print in front of you and then contemplating as you go. The videos by Jarrah are wonderful. But, as I have said I would like Jarrah to put it into print. Videos in my opinion are an excellent supplement to books. Yes, Jarrah has taken some things further in his videos such as Plait's and Windley's blog or forum posts.

Yes, Jarrah is getting his degree and he has indeed shown in the past to correct any errors he has made. You will see this in some of his videos.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:12

Ok, so in Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=2U- ... =endscreen, while not acknowleding his mistake about how low the SAA goes, he at least admits that hubble does go high enough to go into the belt. He considers it significant now that hubble must shut down as it goes through the belt for half the time that the apollo astronoauts went through it. He concludes therefore that the Apollos couldn't have gone through it without all the instruments going dead.

He shows some guy who made a vacuum box, found his glove couldn't move much, and concludes that therefore the astronauts would not have been able to have fine motor control in the vacuum of space. Now, I don't know enough about the physics here, but I'd question whether that little contraption is a suitable replication of the space experience. White doesn't address this issue so we don't know his opinion on this.

White then goes to refer to a lens that NASA said was improperly ground - and apparently doubts this because school kids can apparently grind these kind of things. I'm sorry, but c'mon! That's a ludicrous argument. Especially if you don't examine whether there were any differences between the hubble version and the do it yourself version. White doesn't go into any more detail so we don't know whether he contemplated this.

He goes into a weird digression of whether hubble was really a spy telescope. Not sure what that has to do with it going through the SAA.

He spends the rest of the video alleging some sort of fakery involving repairs made to Hubble. He again refers to that guy's vaccuum test as being determinative. It is so far off topic that I don't know why he includes it in this video, and that subject is outside the confines of this thread. (if anyone wants to focus on that please do so in the other thread, or create a thread.)

After 40 minutes of this video, I am suitably underwhelmed. I'm trying to approach this objectively. If anyone has a different interpretation I'd welcome it.

So far though he's approached this topic in a rather strange way.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 07:14

The23rdman wrote:
really? wrote:A citation from a valid non ct source please. An official NASA document is needed to validate your claim.


I agree. Not sure I care enough to go hunting for one though.

EDIT: It seem "experts" doesn't mean anything here. Sydney made a huge leap from this quote to NASA experts said it. I apologise for taking his word on it.


There are numerous watered down articles on the NASA website as well, written by 'NASA'. Naturally they've hedged it to say they need to study 'long term' effects, as though they can't just multiply out the reading they supposedly got on the Apollo missions by a larger number of days, with conclusions based on radiation research already conducted on earth about safe levels of exposure. So NASA has said a number of times they need to do more radiation research.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 07:19

Arouet and forum members. The whole Apollo issue is going to turn into one big "magilla" as my NYPD friends say. Again, I fear at the end of the day this will be just an exercise in futility. Guys, the fact you haven't read the opposing camp's books (books named by me) to measure Jarrah's information may be a burden I don't want to undertake. Yes, I will continue to look at what information you guys find from NASA or any other sources. I think that is a good thing. Frankly, what I would love to see is for both camps to get together and hammer this out. In one instance there was a court case between James Lovell and Bill Kaysing. Kaysing blew it when he failed to press the matter further with Lovell lying in a court transcript. Yes, you can see this in Jarrah's videos.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:22

Misha wrote:Arouet, I'm pretty sure the NASA press kits are authentic. Let me clarify what I mean by public. By this I mean whether the radiation issue was talked about on "Boob tube" or any of the mainstream presses such as the NY Times, Washington Times, Boston Globe and so forth. That would be interesting if this could be found. And yes, we did not have the Internet at the time, but I will look for this too.


Wouldn't the press kit be the most important thing, though? NASA doesn't know what the press are going to focus on. They certainly seemed to have alerted them to the potential issues. What is the relevance of whether any journalists actually followed it up? What conclusions should we draw about that fact?

I'm pleased you watched Part 1. It is roughly ten minutes long. Please watch the other 22 segments, though. This will help center the argument considering Jarrah's work is well researched for at least the video information.


I'm working my way through them, but I've got to take issue with you so far on whether White's videos are well-researched. They don't appear so to me - at least not over the first four installments. He seems to make very careless mistakes and draws unsupported conclusions. Again, I stand to be corrected. But the first 4 installments are error ridden and poorly argued, imo.

While I didn't study science, I spent 8 years in university so have quite a lot of experience with research and putting together coherent arguments.

When you say astronauts caught out in the open (referring to Jarrah's information), are you speaking below the Van Allen belts, outside the Van Allen belts, or on the moon?


I mean caught outside the shuttle.

As for absorbing the radiation and shielding, you have to view all 23 (I think that is roughly the number on his radiation series) and most likely his other series on Apollo. I'll have to go back and check too.


Yeah, I leave open the possibility that he corrects himself. I'm trying to be fair.

As for Svector, I can't say who he is. He may be mentioned, or his background in another of Jarrah's series. However, Jarrah does critique NASA's Phil Plait and Jay Windley and others throughout the moonfaker.com series. Plait also critiques Jarrah. It is very interesting to say the least.


Sure its interesting, but he was wrong in his critiques on Plait in episode 3. Unexusably wrong, IMO. I can't understand really how he could get it so wrong. The information is everywhere. I can't explain how he couldn't have known he was wrong.

Again, I want to be clear that I am not only referring to the radiation issue strictly on Jarrah's research, though it is good. I have read and have taken into consideration Percy and Benett's book - "Dark Moon" and Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step" also.


Maybe I'll see if I can track them down. But I really suggest you give these White videos another view, and see if you find them as credible this time round.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 07:24

There was meant to be a fatal flaw in the optics launched with Hubble -- wasn't it corrected via a space shuttle repair eventually? i'm a bit hazy on details on that one. It might be very interesting if it was pointed down at earth, yes!

But this is not talking about radiation, Arou! Nor is the digression on the pressurised gloves! Although there is a great deal of suspicion over whether pressurised gloves would have been usable -- it's more likely they were on earth in the vids with no pressure applied on the gloves. They simply would not have had the dexterity to do certain things. The Apollo 17 whinging about sore hands disappeared immediately on splashdown where they did not display the claimed hand damage whatsoever, something that the pseudosceps here have been avoiding addressing on the other thread. Bad pseudosceps!

As pointed out numerous times already, it only takes one significant problem to be proven to pretty well disprove the Apollo missions, not all of them. At the very least, NASA has a lot of explaining to do. On the balance of probabilities, the missions probably never left low earth orbit, and in some cases I doubt there was anyone on the rockets and they may not have even fired -- just used older Saturn V footage of take-offs. The stereoscopic and visual analysis of Apollo pics is a strong proof. The others are milder and more circumstantial proofs in some cases. That's just how it is.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 01 Jan 2013, 07:29, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:There was meant to be a fatal flaw in the optics launched with Hubble -- wasn't it corrected via a space shuttle repair eventually? i'm a bit hazy on details on that one. It might be very interesting if it was pointed down at earth, yes!

But this is not talking about radiation, Arou! Nor is the digression on the pressurised gloves! Although there is a great deal of suspicion over whether pressurised gloves would have been usable -- it's more likely they were on earth in the vids with no pressure applied on the gloves. They simply would not have had the dexterity to do certain things. The Apollo 17 whinging about sore hands disappeared immediately on splashdown where they did not display the claimed hand damage whatsoever, something that the pseudosceps here have been avoiding addressing on the other thread. Bad pseudosceps!

As pointed out numerous times already, it only takes one significant problem to be proved to pretty well disprove the Apollo missions, not all of them. The stereoscopic and visual analysis of Apollo pics is a strong proof. The others are milder and more circumstantial proofs in some cases. That's just how it is.


Sydney, I asked that this topic not be discussed in this thread. You can bring it up in the main thread or start a new one if you wish. Let's not talk about the hubble issue here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 07:28

Arouet, I have watched Whites videos (all of them) two times. I am watching them again on and off for the moment. What bothers me is you appear to be making up your mind so early. And yes, I went to college too. But, let's be fair-minded with this approach. Lincoln never went to college.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:31

Misha wrote:Arouet, I think it is best you go through the whole series before arriving at questions.


Well, I don't plan on keeping a separate notes log and then publish a full report. I'd rather go episode by episode. I've stated a few times that perhaps White corrected himself later and I will be happy to report if he answers some of my criticisms down the road. But the way I'm going to do this is post my notes as I go.

White has used multiple sources and fact checked with others against NASA's Apollo record. I really wish you guys would get those books I have mentioned. I think you could weigh the arguments on this far better having the print in front of you and then contemplating as you go. The videos by Jarrah are wonderful. But, as I have said I would like Jarrah to put it into print. Videos in my opinion are an excellent supplement to books. Yes, Jarrah has taken some things further in his videos such as Plait's and Windley's blog or forum posts.


If I can find an online version then I'll go through them. I'm not really keen on typing out long portions of text from a paper book. I'm only going through the White series because you specifically recommended it. Maybe you can let me know what you find so compelling about it. let me know where you disagree with my notes.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:33

Misha wrote:Arouet, I have watched Whites videos (all of them) two times. I am watching them again on and off for the moment. What bothers me is you appear to be making up your mind so early. And yes, I went to college too. But, let's be fair-minded with this approach. Lincoln never went to college.


I'm not making my mind up. I'm looking at specific claims and arguments that White makes. I'm trying to be explicit about the issues I have with them which seem to include incorrect facts and conclusions not supported by the evidence he presents.

I'm trying to approach this as objectively as possible. If you think any of my critiques are misplaced, let me know! I'll stand to be corrected. If I think he makes a strong point I will point that out as well.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:38

Misha wrote:Arouet and forum members. The whole Apollo issue is going to turn into one big "magilla" as my NYPD friends say. Again, I fear at the end of the day this will be just an exercise in futility. Guys, the fact you haven't read the opposing camp's books (books named by me) to measure Jarrah's information may be a burden I don't want to undertake. Yes, I will continue to look at what information you guys find from NASA or any other sources. I think that is a good thing. Frankly, what I would love to see is for both camps to get together and hammer this out. In one instance there was a court case between James Lovell and Bill Kaysing. Kaysing blew it when he failed to press the matter further with Lovell lying in a court transcript. Yes, you can see this in Jarrah's videos.


Misha, my goal is your goal: which is to try and have a productive discussion about these issues. I don't see what's wrong with my approach. I'm going through the videos one by one and trying to confirm his arguments and conclusions. I don't think I'm skipping over any key arguments he has made, if you think I have, then please draw it to my attention. The fact that White has done a poor job in the first four episodes doesn't mean that he is wrong. Just that he has not been convincing in the first fourt episodes. I'm open to it getting better.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 07:39

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:There was meant to be a fatal flaw in the optics launched with Hubble -- wasn't it corrected via a space shuttle repair eventually? i'm a bit hazy on details on that one. It might be very interesting if it was pointed down at earth, yes!

But this is not talking about radiation, Arou! Nor is the digression on the pressurised gloves! Although there is a great deal of suspicion over whether pressurised gloves would have been usable -- it's more likely they were on earth in the vids with no pressure applied on the gloves. They simply would not have had the dexterity to do certain things. The Apollo 17 whinging about sore hands disappeared immediately on splashdown where they did not display the claimed hand damage whatsoever, something that the pseudosceps here have been avoiding addressing on the other thread. Bad pseudosceps!

As pointed out numerous times already, it only takes one significant problem to be proved to pretty well disprove the Apollo missions, not all of them. The stereoscopic and visual analysis of Apollo pics is a strong proof. The others are milder and more circumstantial proofs in some cases. That's just how it is.


Sydney, I asked that this topic not be discussed in this thread. You can bring it up in the main thread or start a new one if you wish. Let's not talk about the hubble issue here.

What? You raised Hubble!? I'm quoting you! Have you gone completely mad this time?

After all, we know you don't HAVE to be mad to be a pseudoscep, but it helps...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 07:46

SydneyPSIder wrote:What? You raised Hubble!? I'm quoting you! Have you gone completely mad this time?

After all, we know you don't HAVE to be mad to be a pseudoscep, but it helps...


Sydney, the relevant discussion about the hubble to this thread is whether it passes through the SAA or not.

You went into White's digression about which I wrote this:

He spends the rest of the video alleging some sort of fakery involving repairs made to Hubble. He again refers to that guy's vaccuum test as being determinative. It is so far off topic that I don't know why he includes it in this video, and that subject is outside the confines of this thread. (if anyone wants to focus on that please do so in the other thread, or create a thread.)


If you want to talk about hubble vis-a-vis radiation - that's fine. The stuff you talked about is off-topic.


As for being a pseudoskeptic, can you identify what is pseudoskeptical about my approach to analysing the White video?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Jan 2013, 08:07

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:What? You raised Hubble!? I'm quoting you! Have you gone completely mad this time?

After all, we know you don't HAVE to be mad to be a pseudoscep, but it helps...


Sydney, the relevant discussion about the hubble to this thread is whether it passes through the SAA or not.

You went into White's digression about which I wrote this:

He spends the rest of the video alleging some sort of fakery involving repairs made to Hubble. He again refers to that guy's vaccuum test as being determinative. It is so far off topic that I don't know why he includes it in this video, and that subject is outside the confines of this thread. (if anyone wants to focus on that please do so in the other thread, or create a thread.)


If you want to talk about hubble vis-a-vis radiation - that's fine. The stuff you talked about is off-topic.


As for being a pseudoskeptic, can you identify what is pseudoskeptical about my approach to analysing the White video?

I'm talking about your digressions while 'analysing' parts 2, 3 and 4 of white's videos -- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in those digressions? Just attempting to discredit the guy generally, from the pseudoscep playbook? Was attempting to clarify whether the point is that radiation levels in the SAA will throw off Hubble and any other satellite that passes through it? Otherwise, you've lost me way back there somewhere...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron