Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

[Arouet]

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.

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

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.

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[Arouet]

[Misha]

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.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]