To all you moon hoaxers out there. what is the deal? what are you trying gain? We beat the soviets, and now you morons cant accept that, if you don't believe me then go to a observation station and look at the moon with a high powered telescope and you will see every single Apollo landing zone with the LEM bottom still there. grow the fuck up and get a life you damn hoaxers.
Bart hopes to convince you and sell his movie to you, that's why he made a fool outta' himself stalking astronauts. Nice film my Man! There's allot of crap our government and policies have done wrong, but Moon landing aint' one of them.
Additional proof you shouldn't outrightly trust Sibrel; the Van Allen radiation belt mostly contains electrons and protons. When using high atomic number elements, like say *lead* as opposed to say *aluminum* (the shielding of Apollo). You actually create far more lethal X-rays as the radiation reacts with the lead and decays, giving off X-ray radiation. Not only that, the surface of the moon isn't as flat as the parkinglot down stairs. Take note of the crater.
@UnmaskedTuxedo Bart Sibrel wrote and produced the video. And the narrator is Anne Tonelson, not Anne Robinson; I was kidding about it being the "Weakest Link" lady.
@shanedk how do you explain the light reflections on the heel of the astronaut?
how do you explain the light reflections on the suite which have metal (flat, round) buttons? look at the highlight at the buttons and you can see there was a fill in light! i compared the highlights of these buttons with apollo training photos. look also at the highlights of the ladder sides! they are indicating a fill in light.
Your svideo is mostly right but you haven't answered any questions i would ask.
@shanedk watch my video on mythbusters and their photo observation and you see that the mythbusters are liars too! I think the mythbuster moon hoax episode is the worst debunking attempt and made me actually look into this - because the episode is full of errors circular reasoning! Like the photo surface reflection, the foot print, the wire support and slomo, the reflector. the only thing they got right - was the shadows.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gee aren't those mountains in the background the same as on Apollo 11? Or apollo 15 or 16 or 17 or ALL OF THE ABOVE? lol hEY LOSER YOU MUST BE ON THE MOON BITCHBOY ALSO.
@cadu1995 No, they're all different. You see similar mountains in individual missions, of course, because each mission was in its own place, but there are no matches in backgrounds across missions.
I and others have pwned Jarrah so many times it's pathetic.
@shanedk Actually u have it backwards. YOU have been PWNED PITIFULLY by Jarrah White-YOU are pathetic.
And u really act like an asshole in this video.Funny how a kid HALF you are, acts so much more mature & doesn't need foolish acting & crossing his eyes to prove you 100% WRONG. LOL
U acting like a 6 year old-doesn't give you ANY credence at all for a Moon-Tard.
@SpreadingtheMuse If you use solid lead shielding or any other high atomic number element, you'll be creating more far more lethal radiation from your own shielding xD (see my comment under 'all comments' I just posted it before I saw this)
NASA continually measured the radiation the astronauts received. That was the TOTAL CUMULATIVE RADIATION for the whole time they were there. Apollo 14 got the most, with 1.14 skin rads for the ENTIRE TRIP. You're arguing with ESTABLISHED FACT.
ok, fine! then why does nasa designing equipment to measure radiation effects on human tissue now? did they not have the exposure data analyzed back then? why would nasa, in all its sanity, try to plan moon-stay for more than a "few days", when every nasa scientist knows that the next solar flare could kill every living tissue on the moon, i.e., if sent there? these facts need to be analyzed in all seriusness to get to the truth rather than having blind faith, you'd agree!
Because they're SCIENTISTS, and that's what scientists DO, maybe? Study things to learn more about them instead of being a self-righteous pugnacious prick who must always assert that he's 100% right? Maybe?
i got it! being a masters in physics, biochemistry and astrophysics myself, and doing a good job as a univ teacher, i've to follow your esteemed remark to learn more about the so-called "truth tellers" and "righteus scientists", is it?
then would you please clarify from your fellow scientists why grissom, chaffee and white were burned in 100% oxygen at 17psi? or is it that this self-righteus pugnacius prick is 100% right?
be careful with your words, that's my free advise!
Um, because it WAS 100% oxygen??? Because you NEED OXYGEN FOR FIRE??? Because the MORE oxygen you have, the EASIER it is to start a fire???
With all the combustibles there were in the craft, and all the wiring and everything else that could cause a spark, plus the fact that the door wouldn't open under pressure, how FUCKING STUPID do you have to be to think this needs an explanation???
They had more than one, you pathetic imbecile! Do you have ANY reason to think that the LM pilot (Edgar Mitchell) got any more radiation than Alan Shepard?
Travel, are you still around? It's game, set and match son. Even Jarrah White is silenced and this moonhoax is sinking in the swamp very slowly but surely.
Is exposed as a fraud, and runs away now. It is clear that he had no Idea about the term space radiation. He repeated to say that he tought that I was telling that Space radiation is a unique entity. LOL So SPM first I made it up the term space radiation, and later when you found out what it was, I didnt know what it meant???
You are afraid that you will be proven wrong on your chanel, I see.
All will see there that you change your mind as you go.
Like fist yelling at me that i make up space radiation and than not back it up and turn a 180. By claiming you understand the term space radiation now, and than explane to me what it is. lol.
The problem is if I would go into facts you will be lost before we start.
I have to start at a level where I have to explane space radiation, Im not a teacher.
You tried to say space radiation was an "official term."
Did you or did you not quote google as "proof?"
(if were you, I'd deny doing that too ;) )
Those of us who actually work in nuclear plants are always SO worried about the corny threats of inexperienced amatuers. ;)
Remember, you've ALREADY fumbled and avoided several questions I've asked on radiation specifics, meaning, *aghast* you had no idea what the answers were.
Again you are wrong and misinform people. I will correct your you again it was you stm how told me that I made up the words "space radiation". You are not getting away with it as I have prove before, I will expose you as flip floper.
When there is no debat about the words and meaning of "space radiation" any more, I want a official im sorry from you on this chanel in public.
Spreading the Muse, again wrong, you didnt know what space radiation was just a few weeks ago. That you tought that I tried to put "space radiation" on the official list: -Alpha -Beta -Gamma ect Shows again that you had no idea what I was talking about. So, that was a wrong conclusion that I made it up. It would be nice to say sorry for that now. peace
You can deny it all day, but it was YOUR post where you quoted google to say "See, google says its an official word."
Keep denying it and I'll keep bringing that up. You cant escape your own words. ;)
You are owed no apology, and will never get one. Enjoy. ;)
Bear in mind, every post where you harp like a little girl ignoring your own statements is one less where we get to hear about this great "evidence" of yours. You obviously have no faith in it, and prefer to stall. ;)
I deserve an apology for wasting my time with an obvious fruitcake. ;)
I want to hear these stupendous "numbers" of yours. Please please post them so I can point out the numerous errors, inaccuracies, and illiteracies they no doubt contain. (You cant honestly expect to beat an ACTUAL radiologist) I'm waiting. ;)
I've proven you wrong too many times to get any further enjoyment out of it. ;)
You tried to say "space" radiation was an official term and got slapped down. I therefore have no reason to believe any "numbers" you have will be of any competence. Cut and pastes from equally retarded websites will not impress me. ;)
So, you're getting demoted. You have no further intellectual sophistication than to repeat yourself ad nauseum, I dont feel the need to read any further. You lost a month ago. ;)
Now you've been bluffing and stalling and faking quite long enough.
And myself, as an actual educated professional, have wasted enough time dealing with a newb.
Your NEXT post will detail each and every "number" you pretend to understand, or this conversation is terminated.
I've caught too many hoax dorks and amateurs and wannabes in bluffing and stalling not to recognize it whenever I see it. You are DESPERATE to avoid a technical argument.
Waste your own time. I dont argue with pretenders.
You've avoided ALL technical questions about radiation. And we all know exactly why. ;)
As for "space radiation?" You're an idiot, for I've answered that 50 times already. You said it was an "OFFICIAL TERM," quoting google as your only evidence.
THAT WAS STUPID OF YOU.
"Space" radiation does not exist as its own unique entity, but you HOPED it did. As all your cut and pasted newb webpages said "SPACE RADIATION IS BAD."
You tried to put "space radiation" on the official list:
-Alpha
-Beta
-Gamma
-Space
That you're so desperate to deny it is all the more proof how stupid even you admit that was. ;)
We can beat this dead horse another week, but its obvious you ran out of cut and pastes a month ago. Thats what happens when you think a 30 sec google search makes you an expert. ;)
My channel doesnt have a Moonlanding section, therefore it would be off-topic.
I am at this time working on a educational film about elementary radiation concepts. I MIGHT let you pst on that upon completion, but you'd have to live up to very strict standards of evidence, equal to my own:
Post direct links to "NASA" sources, not cut and pastes from god knows where etc I'll keep you updated
Now its telling that out of every post I made, you ignored every single one that had any specific fact in it.
That I posted fact after fact, and you had nothing to refute with except "well I found it on google" demonstrates beyond any explanation how ignorant your entire point is.
After all, if so much of what I said went over your head, then you ought to admit how much you honestly dont know, instead of these banal cut and paste games.
For example, "I found it on google" has failed to refute any of these points.
-Alpha, Beta, and Neutron radiation do not need lead to be blocked
-"7000 rem" is a meaningless scare word without knowing what TYPE of radiation we're discussing. Since Alpha and Beta can be blocked by virtually anything, you could hit a human with 7,000,000,000 rem and they'd scarcely feel a thing. NASA will agree with me.
You cant skip a decades education and then pretend that google makes you an expert.
I would had expected a beter answer to the term space radiation, however it pleases me to hear you say:
"Its only the sum of OTHER radiations."
Just before you spreading the muse told me:
"Space radiation asked for and never provided therefore you made it up"
So we can come together now that I didnt make it up, and that you where wrong telling me I made it up. I think it will be a nice gesture to apoligize for this quick conclusion.
Why cant you provide me with ANY specs on "space" radiation? If you cant provide them then you cant provide them.
Alpha is a positively charged +2 particle
Beta is a negatively charged -1 particle
etc etc etc
But where oh where is this "space" radiation? I have asked you repeatedly for an official listing and you keep failing.
I can keep proving you to be a newb many times. Since you avoided all debate on "google told me so," you've admitted that THAT was also as stupid as I said it was.
"Space" radiation as a singular entity does not exist.
"Space" radiation is not an official listing. We understand that "google told me so" is very tempting for inexperienced amateur newbs, but you have to admit that there are somewhat HIGHER standards of evidence. ;)
Yes, you DID claim it was a singular entity. Always referring to it by THAT name, insisting (wrongly) that it was an "official term," insisting it was on NASA's official list, etc etc etc.
You're only backing off now as you've been beaten over the head with fact after fact you cant answer with cut and pastes.
And guess what, you STILL have refuted any of my facts.
Is it true or false that 7000 rem of alpha cant penetrate ANY spacesuit?
(I've WORKED in alpha areas with a lot LESS protection)
You tried to pretend the term "space radiation" was official, going so far to say "well google says so," as your 'proof." ;)
Upon being beaten over the head with facts, you realized how stupid your position was and are now engaged in a transparently frantic backpedal, where you attempt to deny YOUR OWN words.
If you got yourself stuck in a spot where you to deny what you yourself said, I guess it was pretty dumb of you to say it in the first place, wasnt it? ;)
Another major flare that occurred half way between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 moonwalks would have had a much more deadly outcome had it arrived while astronauts were outside their spacecraft playing golf. Within a few minutes, the astronauts would have been killed on the spot with an incredible 7000 rem blast of radiation. The daily dosage of radiation on the Space Station is about equal to 8 chest X-rays per day.
You reveal your amateurishness by insisting on lumping all the radiations together as equal and interchangeable in every way.
"REM" is only computed AFTER the type of radiation is known. Alpha and Beta have different rem values, so smearing them all together merely gets inaccurate laziness.
Alpha, Beta, Proton, Nuetron DO NOT NEED lead to be blocked. Therefore "7000 rem" is useless fear-mongering with big words you dont understand.
"Space radiation" is NOT a TECHNICAL term. It has no separate category next to "Alpha, beta, gamma" etc.
It doesnt have its own Rem factor,
Doesnt have its own shielding factor etc etc etc
Its only the sum of OTHER radiations.
You're engaging in very superficial thinking in equating "well it shows up on google" to being listed on the official radiation list. Its only the sum of OTHER radiations and doenst have an identity of its own.
During the Apollo program, there were several near-misses between the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon and a deadly solar storm event. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked on the Moon only a few short weeks after a major solar proton flare would have bathed the astronauts in a 100 rem blast of radiation.
Just to make my point on the term space radiation.
See NASA website. The term 'space radiation effects' has to do with all of the different ways that these severe conditions can significantly change the way a satellite operates, or the health of an astronaut working and living in space.
Dont just cut and paste a loaded word like a newb. If NASA supports you then post the EXACT link to a DIRECT NASA website. No skips, no cut and pastes.
NASA would be highly unlikely to use "Space" as an official term, as the various types of REAL radiation, alpha, beta, gamma, etc, have different effects on humans, different electromagnetic effects, etc. It would be inaccurate and counter-productive to lump them all together.
I have silenced this chanel for almost four weeks now. Just by undeniable facts. I have strong evidence that Apollo program was not able to go to the moon.
But who gets to decide "undeniable?" The inexperienced and uneducated? Admitted hoax biased newbs not qualified in the topic in the first place? Grandiose claims made by wannabes are just as common as they are flimsy, and fail to impress anyone.
Let alone those of us who actually are professionally trained. We do DENY your moronic evidence, and have been refuting it (with ease) for years.
Save the cliches for amateurs, and dont pretend you're one of us.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dont engage in self-pleasure in a public place travel. ;)
That you've been asked repeatedly, and refused, to prove "space radiation," or "gamma," or on and on is undeniably proof that you have no idea what these words mean. ;)
Here are the facts you have not disputed:
A linked movie YOU provided had no information on "space" radiation. I quoted the line here to prove you screwed up. You never denied it. ;)
I quoted the CORRECT definition of Gamma. You never denied it.
How many 'fakers" have you exposed? I want names, dates, and threads where you can prove it.
And let us hope it was done more competently than your bellyflop here, where you refused to explain ANY position, refused to answer even rudimentary follow-up questions.
You mean cut and pasting dork webpages FAILED to prepare you for debate with an actual radiation professional? I cant imagine whatever went wrong with your master plan, ;)
The question you've refused repeatedly to repeat or provide a source for?
A question you're SO confident about you refuse to post any corroborating evidence in this thread where ALL could see it?
;)
I bet radiation engineers everywhere are just scared to DEATH. ;)
How many times did you refuse to post information on that question? A dozen or more? We'd just HATE to think it was a huge bluff that you had no idea about. ;)
If you have any video response, you'll link it right here or I wont watch it at all.
Frankly, your avoidance of every difficult question and obvious cut and pastes of words you dont understand makes you look like the worst of all possible fakers, and you have no idea how many times you've looked like an idiot.
I quoted your first link myself to prove it said nothing.
Is using censorship, when someone ignors me or tells me to stop sending masages I willl stop. But to use cencorship and support it is very wrong. This man claims to be a teacher?
You are right mate, but it was on the spreading the muse channel that he censored me. Why? That will make you not a great man that has knoledge, but more a man that thinks he knows everything.
peace mate.
PS if it is done by a virus im the first to appoligise.
Travel you are ignorant in the use of Youtube, for no user has any power to "censor," block, or otherwise remove ANY posts on a movie that is not his. This is not my movie, therefore it was physically impossible for me to have done anything.
You should inform yourself on the proper facts before making baseless accusations.
I just tought that it would be easier to let NASA tell Spreadingthemuse, about difrent radiation in space . After waching the video please answer A or B?
A. You didnt know it (A sorry I was wrong and we dont talk about it anymore.)
B. You knew it, (than he is a hoaxer and can not be trusted any more)
Thank to NASA for releasing this clip on space radiation.
Whatever you thought you heard is your obvious misunderstanding of big words you are neither educated nor experienced in, neither of which applies to me.
Given the option that
A) there's a "space" radiation that exists in no Radiation Text that I can find, or
B) You dont understand what you're hearing in frantic attempts to cut and paste jargon from NASA you've never heard before in your life, and are goofing it up-
through THOUGHT alone that.......Bart Sibrel (Sorry I meant B.S.) is EXACTLY the sort of person to go and get fake credentials to bust into a secure home for people with terminal illnesses, annoy the residents repeatedly to swear on a bible that they don't want to die, and then file lawsuits against their estates when they do die, because he will have video of them clearly swearing on a bible that they don't want to die, when they go and do the exact opposite, which is die. THE LIARS!!!!!!
SpreadingtheMuse and Shanedk, I know you hear it enough, but I still gotta say it you guys rock! After watching some video of Bart Sibrel (who should be referred to by everbody by his initials only) pissing off astronaut Alan Bean, he REALLY got me thinking......And after a few hours of hard labor (I work in a small grocery store) It came to me (sadly, not scientific enough to qualify and quantify for you guys, but it still came to me nonetheless) I discovered through THOUGHT alone that........
"We still do not know if seeing a flash means that cells in the retina or even the brain are being damaged. ALTEA will go some way to answering these questions. It will also help to monitor cosmic ray levels on board the ISS generally, even when the Altea helmet is not being worn."
ESA tells you "We still do not know" you are controdict ESA so what is your source?
SO WHAT? You've convoluted your own point and jumped thru so many hoops to avoid admitting that you know nothing about radiation that your posts are now incomprehensible. You've quoted nothing from ESA that is remotely relevant. And these are obvious stall tactics to avoid my simple questions.
My "source" BTW, is the Nuclear Worker Training Program, whose tenants and calculations keep workers alive in Nuke plants every day. ;)
ESA is aware of this radiation and is doing experiments at the iss.
ESA tells also thatspace travel is letal to man without protection. ESA is the leading space agency. They will probelly be the first to go for real to the moon.
Again my video response is shown how little some astranouts know about the van Allen belt and space radiation.
Theres that pesky exposure per time question again. ;) The one you prove your newbishness on.
You see, gieger counters give their readings in units of "rem per hour," meaning any claim of BIG SCARY WORDS like "lethal" are nonsensical without a timeframe to quantify it.
Thats what REAL nuke workers learn about, but if you still think watching a 30 sec vid makes you an expert, good luck, I'm sure that'll work out well for you. ;)
Rad levels are different in different areas, based on angle to the sun, and oh, lest we forget, this all powerful all scary and dark evil VAN ALLEN BELT that you like to newbishly quote. Except now you're trying to avoid it?
Well THATS informative. ;)
If you cant quote the rad levels
1) In normal space
2) Van Allen
3) Moon surface (all three will be different)
and the time spent in each place, then you're bluffing again.
See, I've got my radiation safety manual right here, and whereas it uses "rem" and "rad" and "exposure time," I cant seem to find "DEADLY" anywhere.
I guess that means its a stall word to avoid admitting you have NO IDEA what the exact rad levels are, and have no idea how to find out. So you hide your ignorance behind corny cliches hoping to not be embarrassed as a phony any further.
A "wrong" manual you've never read or even heard of? ;)
DESPITE your earlier claims of being an expert in radiation? Until you were given rudimentary questions on any freshman exam and bombed them in public? ;)
Why do you refuse to give values for what you claimed to already know? Exposing you as a newb is getting old, so I'll do it jsut one more time:
Can you or can you not:
1) Identify the EXACT DOSE received by the men during their journey?
Good thing they didnt say "Voldemort" or we'd be in BIG trouble. ;)
We're so glad you can cut and paste words you dont understand on a topic you're not educated in. You havent posted a word yet that wasnt obviously ten years past your education level.
Lets put the challenge this way:
I've worked a Nuclear power plant and Nuclear engineering center. Can you point to any HOAX KOOK who can say the same? Or are you limited to cut and pastes? ;)
"During the Apollo missions of the 1960s70s, the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major solar eruption that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation. Essentially, they took risks and got away with it."
If you disagree with the word deadly or this quote just contact ESA and tell them you live story mate.
We don't disagree, we merely don't see the point. There were LOTS of risks that were taken. The risks of not dying due to a CME were mitigated both by the relative rarity of such an event happening in their direction and the fact that they were only in space for a few days. A longer-term mission would have more to worry about from this, but as it stood from Apollo, there were a LOT of other risks that they took.
Yes, but you find them anywhere. While there are different things in space that generate the different kinds of radiation, there's not a whole separate category of "space radiation."
For short trips such as the Apollo missions it was not a huge problem, It Will be a big issue for any prospective Mars mission due to the length of time such a trip would take.
In short, for a week or two the radiation in space is not a problem. For a year or two it becomes a larger problem.
Current plans for constellation call for up to 210 day missions.
From the nasa webpage:
"Orion will start out supporting week-long missions and then will be able to support up to 210-day missions when astronauts eventually live and work at outposts on the moon."
Let me asking than what is Mark weyland telling than? a two day sv on the moon or what? Can you please react on what he meant there, a two day sv on the moon?
No where in that video did Weyland say the new missions would last 2 days.
What he said was that they were using a technique to predict periods clear from solar flares for 2 days. And that those two days would be used for EVAs.
Solar flares are a bigger danger for the new moon missions because they will spend far more time on the moon.
In the little video M. Weyland tells us that hospital or nukeworkers are exposed to very difrent kind of radiation as nasa is consurned about in space. Do you agree with him?
M Weyland did not say ANYTHING about the "difference" between radiations.
I quoted the exact sec you linked to.
A) Did you link the wrong sec? or
B) In ignorance, not understand what he said?
A or B? ;)
Until you quote his exact line, I'm afraid I'm still proven right. ;)
Its incompetence like yours that proves the stupidity of hoax "truthers." There is no evidence for a fake not based in the illiteracy of amatuers like you. ;)
I think that you are in no position to UNDERSTAND him. You're trying to filter experienced jargon thru your under-educated mind and much is obviously being lost in translation.
I, on the other hand, being experienced and educated in proper terminology, do understand him.
And at no point does he say "There's a SPACE radiation that does not exist on Earth."
A direct quote of that is the only proof I'll accept.
You have quoted absolutely NOTHING from any source, NASA or otherwise, that contradicts a single word of what I've said about radiation.
The ridiculousness of your links to other hoax movies makes me believe you didnt even watch the movies yourself, as they said nothing either to contradict me.
Since I've asked repeatedly for a direct quote and you've failed to provide, I have no confidence that you have any credible information.
I'm still waiting to hear the exact quote from NASA that proves anything. For even YOUR OWN link, which I quoted here earlier, was nonsensical.
If the quote was so stupendous, surely you'd have no fear of quoting it and would even jump at the chance. But since we have to twist your arm, and since your first link was a dumb bomb, its increasingly obvious you've GOT no quote. ;)
This is your dumb attempt to save face in an argument ten years past your education.
The narrator sounds nothing like Ann Robinson. Its not even the same accent.
I know this partially because I'm English, and mostly because her harrion shrieks are borred into my brain for all eternity.
andromidius 7 months ago
@andromidius It was a joke, just so I could get those Weakest Link lines in there.
shanedk 7 months ago
123432154646456 has been blocked for homophobic comments.
shanedk 10 months ago
dick head
wen790 11 months ago
To all you moon hoaxers out there. what is the deal? what are you trying gain? We beat the soviets, and now you morons cant accept that, if you don't believe me then go to a observation station and look at the moon with a high powered telescope and you will see every single Apollo landing zone with the LEM bottom still there. grow the fuck up and get a life you damn hoaxers.
spirithunter89 11 months ago
Unfortunately the conspiracy theories are a popular tool for entertaining the masses by which weak minds sell cheap ideas expensively.
blogovo 1 year ago
all the parasites who profited from the moon hoax will be regretting it when the shoe is on the other foot. Parasitism is a losing proposition.
Gromitdog1 1 year ago
Bart hopes to convince you and sell his movie to you, that's why he made a fool outta' himself stalking astronauts. Nice film my Man! There's allot of crap our government and policies have done wrong, but Moon landing aint' one of them.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago 2
Additional proof you shouldn't outrightly trust Sibrel; the Van Allen radiation belt mostly contains electrons and protons. When using high atomic number elements, like say *lead* as opposed to say *aluminum* (the shielding of Apollo). You actually create far more lethal X-rays as the radiation reacts with the lead and decays, giving off X-ray radiation. Not only that, the surface of the moon isn't as flat as the parkinglot down stairs. Take note of the crater.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
The narrator for the video of the Moon Landing Hoax is Anne Robinson, not Bart Sibrel. Is Anne Robinson a Moon Hoax perpetrator?
UnmaskedTuxedo 1 year ago
@UnmaskedTuxedo Bart Sibrel wrote and produced the video. And the narrator is Anne Tonelson, not Anne Robinson; I was kidding about it being the "Weakest Link" lady.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk how do you explain the light reflections on the heel of the astronaut?
how do you explain the light reflections on the suite which have metal (flat, round) buttons? look at the highlight at the buttons and you can see there was a fill in light! i compared the highlights of these buttons with apollo training photos. look also at the highlights of the ladder sides! they are indicating a fill in light.
Your svideo is mostly right but you haven't answered any questions i would ask.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@shanedk watch my video on mythbusters and their photo observation and you see that the mythbusters are liars too! I think the mythbuster moon hoax episode is the worst debunking attempt and made me actually look into this - because the episode is full of errors circular reasoning! Like the photo surface reflection, the foot print, the wire support and slomo, the reflector. the only thing they got right - was the shadows.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader
You don't know what circular reasoning even means, idiot.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gee aren't those mountains in the background the same as on Apollo 11? Or apollo 15 or 16 or 17 or ALL OF THE ABOVE? lol hEY LOSER YOU MUST BE ON THE MOON BITCHBOY ALSO.
What an asshole-rapid fire bogosity? Douchebag.
BTW JarahWhiteblows ALL your hoaxes to HELL.
You really are an asshole jerkoff.
ALSO we never ever went to any moon. lol
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 No, they're all different. You see similar mountains in individual missions, of course, because each mission was in its own place, but there are no matches in backgrounds across missions.
I and others have pwned Jarrah so many times it's pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago 4
@shanedk Actually u have it backwards. YOU have been PWNED PITIFULLY by Jarrah White-YOU are pathetic.
And u really act like an asshole in this video.Funny how a kid HALF you are, acts so much more mature & doesn't need foolish acting & crossing his eyes to prove you 100% WRONG. LOL
U acting like a 6 year old-doesn't give you ANY credence at all for a Moon-Tard.
ed11561 1 year ago
you look evil.
goodnoah 1 year ago
Is this guy for real or is he a hoax? I didn't believe tossers like him existed. Pleaseeee fuck off.
Highwayvagrant 1 year ago
@Highwayvagrant
He's real alright, as there's plenty of people out there who enjoy exposing hoax believers for the ignorant newbs that they are.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
even if it did need solid lead shielding, the booster could of been modified to lift the extra weight, early in the design process
kargaroc386 1 year ago
@kargaroc386
You dont need "solid lead shielding" anyway. 2 out of the 3 most common kinds of radiation can be blocked by aluminum.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse If you use solid lead shielding or any other high atomic number element, you'll be creating more far more lethal radiation from your own shielding xD (see my comment under 'all comments' I just posted it before I saw this)
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
Awesome! If only people were as excited about real science, real skepticism and objective reality as they are about wild conspiracy theories...
GBart 1 year ago
Um...what?
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Listening to Shane's high pitched whining will turn the brain to mulch
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
very good, but lose the zany stuff like the "zing" at 0:44, it's unatural and forced.
spoddie 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
this guyisafuckingretard
rrhly 2 years ago
All that, and he's STILL smarter than you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
tracelstickcouk has had two EXTREMELY libelous comments deleted, and has been blocked.
shanedk 2 years ago
shanedk, the debunking you've done is for silly, misunderstood concepts, probably promoted by nasa themselves.
my q:
1. in the post-a11 press conf., aldrin and collins are having a tough time reacting to the q of star seeing by patrick moore. ??
2. why is the grissom+2 deaths not been investigated when challenger & columbia have been?
3. why's nasa sniffing dirt talking about radiation problem on moon when they've already sent men for more than two day stay?
4. more to come...
bal71ran 2 years ago
1. No, they aren't; that's a total lie.
2. Because we know what happened.
3. Because there is ALL the difference in the world between going for two days and going for extended periods; even stupid people know this.
4. Whatever.
shanedk 2 years ago
@1:55 we can hear the a'nauts got 2rems. strange, now that nasa acks it could be more than 50rems just halfway thru the vabelts!
i hope nasa soon sends at least an animal as a precursor before it "again" attempts a human moon landing.
bal71ran 2 years ago
Comment removed
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You are right, spreadingthemuse he claims to be the expert will will tell you thet gamma rays are no problem.
haha and space radiation he has no clue about, you will have fun with stm.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
NASA continually measured the radiation the astronauts received. That was the TOTAL CUMULATIVE RADIATION for the whole time they were there. Apollo 14 got the most, with 1.14 skin rads for the ENTIRE TRIP. You're arguing with ESTABLISHED FACT.
shanedk 2 years ago
ok, fine! then why does nasa designing equipment to measure radiation effects on human tissue now? did they not have the exposure data analyzed back then? why would nasa, in all its sanity, try to plan moon-stay for more than a "few days", when every nasa scientist knows that the next solar flare could kill every living tissue on the moon, i.e., if sent there? these facts need to be analyzed in all seriusness to get to the truth rather than having blind faith, you'd agree!
bal71ran 2 years ago
Because they're SCIENTISTS, and that's what scientists DO, maybe? Study things to learn more about them instead of being a self-righteous pugnacious prick who must always assert that he's 100% right? Maybe?
shanedk 2 years ago
i got it! being a masters in physics, biochemistry and astrophysics myself, and doing a good job as a univ teacher, i've to follow your esteemed remark to learn more about the so-called "truth tellers" and "righteus scientists", is it?
then would you please clarify from your fellow scientists why grissom, chaffee and white were burned in 100% oxygen at 17psi? or is it that this self-righteus pugnacius prick is 100% right?
be careful with your words, that's my free advise!
bal71ran 2 years ago
Um, because it WAS 100% oxygen??? Because you NEED OXYGEN FOR FIRE??? Because the MORE oxygen you have, the EASIER it is to start a fire???
With all the combustibles there were in the craft, and all the wiring and everything else that could cause a spark, plus the fact that the door wouldn't open under pressure, how FUCKING STUPID do you have to be to think this needs an explanation???
shanedk 2 years ago
haha, the account was closed. seems like a sockpupet account to me...
prowled 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pity you don't have a masters in English.
"why does nasa designing equipment to measure radiation"
Because there are new plans which call for far longer stays than the Apollo missions had. As a physicist
"next solar flare"
Because solar flares that powerful are extremely rare.
ytmoog 2 years ago
shanedk,
sorry but NASA is telling this about Apollo 14
"The Lunar Module Pilot's personal radiation dosimeter failed to integrate the dosage properly after the first 24 hours of flight."
No need to ask where NASA gets this information from 1.14 skin rads to correct you Its 1.15 rads?
Shine a light on that point please where is the 1.15 skin rad based on?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
They had more than one, you pathetic imbecile! Do you have ANY reason to think that the LM pilot (Edgar Mitchell) got any more radiation than Alan Shepard?
shanedk 2 years ago
Travel, are you still around? It's game, set and match son. Even Jarrah White is silenced and this moonhoax is sinking in the swamp very slowly but surely.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
2 days ago stm was silenced, and for a good reason. A man that does not know what space radiation meant.
told that Gamma rays where no problem?
That NASA does not know what they talk about?
Insult people, to cover mistakes!
Sillence of the Muse a AwE production.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Is exposed as a fraud, and runs away now. It is clear that he had no Idea about the term space radiation. He repeated to say that he tought that I was telling that Space radiation is a unique entity. LOL So SPM first I made it up the term space radiation, and later when you found out what it was, I didnt know what it meant???
Does this sound like Homer Simson?
Homer is also a radiation expert as we all know.
AwE
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You are afraid that you will be proven wrong on your chanel, I see.
All will see there that you change your mind as you go.
Like fist yelling at me that i make up space radiation and than not back it up and turn a 180. By claiming you understand the term space radiation now, and than explane to me what it is. lol.
The problem is if I would go into facts you will be lost before we start.
I have to start at a level where I have to explane space radiation, Im not a teacher.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You tried to say space radiation was an "official term."
Did you or did you not quote google as "proof?"
(if were you, I'd deny doing that too ;) )
Those of us who actually work in nuclear plants are always SO worried about the corny threats of inexperienced amatuers. ;)
Remember, you've ALREADY fumbled and avoided several questions I've asked on radiation specifics, meaning, *aghast* you had no idea what the answers were.
Nah, you dont say. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Again you are wrong and misinform people. I will correct your you again it was you stm how told me that I made up the words "space radiation". You are not getting away with it as I have prove before, I will expose you as flip floper.
When there is no debat about the words and meaning of "space radiation" any more, I want a official im sorry from you on this chanel in public.
Peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You tried to say it was "official"
Denying it only proves how stupid you know you were.
And as long as you continue to whine on this channel, you're just going to get insulted and exposed as a rank ignorant all over again. ;)
Bear in mind you got yourself into this by mouthing off about a topic you knew nothing about. And you naively wonder why you got in trouble. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You can deny it all day, but it was YOUR post where you quoted google to say "See, google says its an official word."
Keep denying it and I'll keep bringing that up. You cant escape your own words. ;)
You are owed no apology, and will never get one. Enjoy. ;)
Bear in mind, every post where you harp like a little girl ignoring your own statements is one less where we get to hear about this great "evidence" of yours. You obviously have no faith in it, and prefer to stall. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I deserve an apology for wasting my time with an obvious fruitcake. ;)
I want to hear these stupendous "numbers" of yours. Please please post them so I can point out the numerous errors, inaccuracies, and illiteracies they no doubt contain. (You cant honestly expect to beat an ACTUAL radiologist) I'm waiting. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Space radiation,
Did you say I made it up?
Yes.
So be a man and say sorry I was wrong I didnt know the term space radiation.
The problem I have with you is that you will have the same ignorence with numbers.
Not understanding them and than make a fool of yourself again.
You really over qualify yourself mate.
So you first need to admite that you got it wrong telling me that I made up space radiation.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
I've proven you wrong too many times to get any further enjoyment out of it. ;)
You tried to say "space" radiation was an official term and got slapped down. I therefore have no reason to believe any "numbers" you have will be of any competence. Cut and pastes from equally retarded websites will not impress me. ;)
So, you're getting demoted. You have no further intellectual sophistication than to repeat yourself ad nauseum, I dont feel the need to read any further. You lost a month ago. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading the muse,
Did you say that I made it up?
That you tougth that space radiation was something else shows that you had no idea what space radiation meant.
I repeat just one question, did you say that i made up?
You didnt know what it was and try to tell me now what I was thinking.
The problem is that you will do the same with other terms and numbers you are not familiar with.
to find out later that Im right, and than gone tell me what I was thinking.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Dont embarrass yourself.
You cant even describe ANY of the various radiations, let alone explain what "space" radiation is.
As I recall, you've already been asked several specific questions about radiation, and you bombed them all, proving your ignorance (as I intended).
There is no reason to believe you have any "numbers" of any competence. With no education or experience, you'll be guessing.
Your refusal to post them here only proves you agree with me, and want to stall. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Now you've been bluffing and stalling and faking quite long enough.
And myself, as an actual educated professional, have wasted enough time dealing with a newb.
Your NEXT post will detail each and every "number" you pretend to understand, or this conversation is terminated.
I've caught too many hoax dorks and amateurs and wannabes in bluffing and stalling not to recognize it whenever I see it. You are DESPERATE to avoid a technical argument.
Waste your own time. I dont argue with pretenders.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Why dont you answere the question I ask you?
Did you say I made up space radiation?
Yes you did, that was not a smart thing to say.
Just say that you where wrong its no shame to be wrong.
Peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Because you avoid all of MY questions?
You've avoided ALL technical questions about radiation. And we all know exactly why. ;)
As for "space radiation?" You're an idiot, for I've answered that 50 times already. You said it was an "OFFICIAL TERM," quoting google as your only evidence.
THAT WAS STUPID OF YOU.
"Space" radiation does not exist as its own unique entity, but you HOPED it did. As all your cut and pasted newb webpages said "SPACE RADIATION IS BAD."
Good thing you asked me. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
But thats it travel. You blew your last chance.
ANY idiot can talk real big about "well I have NUMBERS!" (Oh my god, numbers ;) )
But ONLY an idiot lets his bluff get called, only an idiot lets himself get cornered against an actual expert.
I learned long ago that the fastest way to expose a hoax dufus is to ask him to PROVE anything, and you've given us all the best example.
You've proven you have nothing to say, and are an ignorant. All responses will be ignored unread. Go away.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spredingthemuse,
Space radiation is made up by me?
That is what you said and dont want to take responsebility for.
But running away does not make you right.
You will do the same as I will tell you about the higgs field. Probely you will tell me it has nothing to do with radiation. lol.
You start to understand now that radiation in space is acting diffrent.
Im happy I was able to shine a light on you simplistic view of radiation in space.
peace AwE
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Now you know what I try to say?
I just droped the term space radiation to see what you really know about space and radiation. You made a clown of yourself man.
You told that I made up Space radiation, now you know what it is, so didnt make it up.
conclusion Im right you are wrong.
you say sorry,
I say doesnt matter you couldnt know.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You tried to put "space radiation" on the official list:
-Alpha
-Beta
-Gamma
-Space
That you're so desperate to deny it is all the more proof how stupid even you admit that was. ;)
We can beat this dead horse another week, but its obvious you ran out of cut and pastes a month ago. Thats what happens when you think a 30 sec google search makes you an expert. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Why we dont have this debat on you chanel, could just be fun dont you think?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
My channel doesnt have a Moonlanding section, therefore it would be off-topic.
I am at this time working on a educational film about elementary radiation concepts. I MIGHT let you pst on that upon completion, but you'd have to live up to very strict standards of evidence, equal to my own:
Post direct links to "NASA" sources, not cut and pastes from god knows where etc I'll keep you updated
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Now its telling that out of every post I made, you ignored every single one that had any specific fact in it.
That I posted fact after fact, and you had nothing to refute with except "well I found it on google" demonstrates beyond any explanation how ignorant your entire point is.
After all, if so much of what I said went over your head, then you ought to admit how much you honestly dont know, instead of these banal cut and paste games.
Is "I found it on google" a technical point? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
For example, "I found it on google" has failed to refute any of these points.
-Alpha, Beta, and Neutron radiation do not need lead to be blocked
-"7000 rem" is a meaningless scare word without knowing what TYPE of radiation we're discussing. Since Alpha and Beta can be blocked by virtually anything, you could hit a human with 7,000,000,000 rem and they'd scarcely feel a thing. NASA will agree with me.
You cant skip a decades education and then pretend that google makes you an expert.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I would had expected a beter answer to the term space radiation, however it pleases me to hear you say:
"Its only the sum of OTHER radiations."
Just before you spreading the muse told me:
"Space radiation asked for and never provided therefore you made it up"
So we can come together now that I didnt make it up, and that you where wrong telling me I made it up. I think it will be a nice gesture to apoligize for this quick conclusion.
peace to you
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Why cant you provide me with ANY specs on "space" radiation? If you cant provide them then you cant provide them.
Alpha is a positively charged +2 particle
Beta is a negatively charged -1 particle
etc etc etc
But where oh where is this "space" radiation? I have asked you repeatedly for an official listing and you keep failing.
I can keep proving you to be a newb many times. Since you avoided all debate on "google told me so," you've admitted that THAT was also as stupid as I said it was.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"Space" radiation as a singular entity does not exist.
"Space" radiation is not an official listing. We understand that "google told me so" is very tempting for inexperienced amateur newbs, but you have to admit that there are somewhat HIGHER standards of evidence. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading the muse
I never claimed anywhere that it is a singular entity. But im happy you found that out, bravo SPM.
Again, again, and again, you are making up thing I never said to claimed your point. Please stop acting so childish.
YOU WHERE SO SURE ABOUT YOURSELF THAT YOU TOLD ME I MADE IT UP.
now carry the consequence of that and be a good scientist and say, I didnt know.
I will go into numbers but only on you chanel, as you know Im always respectful but also to the point.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Yes, you DID claim it was a singular entity. Always referring to it by THAT name, insisting (wrongly) that it was an "official term," insisting it was on NASA's official list, etc etc etc.
You're only backing off now as you've been beaten over the head with fact after fact you cant answer with cut and pastes.
And guess what, you STILL have refuted any of my facts.
Is it true or false that 7000 rem of alpha cant penetrate ANY spacesuit?
(I've WORKED in alpha areas with a lot LESS protection)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"singular entity"
BUT my amatuer adversary, what ever happened to "But google says its an official term"?
You went to SO much trouble to quote what google had to say on "space" radiation, INSISTING that made it an official term.
You only change your mind now as you've no answer for my repeated attack with actual facts from actual radiation education.
If you want to save face so bad, just give up this quixotic delusion of yours, and stop arguing about what you have no education in.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I will discuss this with you HERE and nowhere else. My channel is off-limits, ESPECIALLY to moon kooks with cut and pasted phony numbers.
My channel is for educational purposes. Its for legitimate students and educators seeking to learn, the likes of which you will never be.
You already abused your privileges there and will not be allowed back on.
Why do you fear talking in public? I assure you I have no fear whatsoever. Likely because I have the rad experience, and the facts. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Funny to see how you bent youself in all corners to getout of the space radiation.
Do you agree that you said I made it up, and that that was nor smart of you to say?
It does not make you look good that you keep trying to get out of it.
First we have to settle this case before I spank you butt with numbers.
peace to you
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You tried to pretend the term "space radiation" was official, going so far to say "well google says so," as your 'proof." ;)
Upon being beaten over the head with facts, you realized how stupid your position was and are now engaged in a transparently frantic backpedal, where you attempt to deny YOUR OWN words.
If you got yourself stuck in a spot where you to deny what you yourself said, I guess it was pretty dumb of you to say it in the first place, wasnt it? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading the muse
NASA again, not the word deadly used by NASA.
Another major flare that occurred half way between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 moonwalks would have had a much more deadly outcome had it arrived while astronauts were outside their spacecraft playing golf. Within a few minutes, the astronauts would have been killed on the spot with an incredible 7000 rem blast of radiation. The daily dosage of radiation on the Space Station is about equal to 8 chest X-rays per day.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"7000 rem"
Of WHAT KIND of radiation?
You reveal your amateurishness by insisting on lumping all the radiations together as equal and interchangeable in every way.
"REM" is only computed AFTER the type of radiation is known. Alpha and Beta have different rem values, so smearing them all together merely gets inaccurate laziness.
Alpha, Beta, Proton, Nuetron DO NOT NEED lead to be blocked. Therefore "7000 rem" is useless fear-mongering with big words you dont understand.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading the muse,
So you say space radiation is not a term?
Well again and again you are not well informed, and start to insult people out of ignorence.
Just go to google and type "space radiation NASA" you willbe suprised.
Its a joke you fight still about this words with me, Its not a shame to learn something from someone else stm.
space radiation is used as term by NASA, ESA, JAXA, ect ect.
So now tell all of us that you didnt know it.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"Space radiation" is NOT a TECHNICAL term. It has no separate category next to "Alpha, beta, gamma" etc.
It doesnt have its own Rem factor,
Doesnt have its own shielding factor etc etc etc
Its only the sum of OTHER radiations.
You're engaging in very superficial thinking in equating "well it shows up on google" to being listed on the official radiation list. Its only the sum of OTHER radiations and doenst have an identity of its own.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading the muse
NASA on space radiation again.
During the Apollo program, there were several near-misses between the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon and a deadly solar storm event. The Apollo 12 astronauts walked on the Moon only a few short weeks after a major solar proton flare would have bathed the astronauts in a 100 rem blast of radiation.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"Deadly storms"
Yes, we've heard this big scary word before, and its frequently cut and pasted with no regard for accurate terminology.
Protons, Nuetrons, Alpha, etc etc can be BLOCKED without lead. And you'll never find a single "NASA" website that will say otherwise.
But then, you've always been better at taking out of context facts and pretending to know what you're talking about. ;)
I spent all day scanning for Beta/Gamma radiation. What did you do all day ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
spreadingthemuse,
Just to make my point on the term space radiation.
See NASA website. The term 'space radiation effects' has to do with all of the different ways that these severe conditions can significantly change the way a satellite operates, or the health of an astronaut working and living in space.
So A or B
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
WHAT "NASA Website?"
Dont just cut and paste a loaded word like a newb. If NASA supports you then post the EXACT link to a DIRECT NASA website. No skips, no cut and pastes.
NASA would be highly unlikely to use "Space" as an official term, as the various types of REAL radiation, alpha, beta, gamma, etc, have different effects on humans, different electromagnetic effects, etc. It would be inaccurate and counter-productive to lump them all together.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I have silenced this chanel for almost four weeks now. Just by undeniable facts. I have strong evidence that Apollo program was not able to go to the moon.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"undeniable"
But who gets to decide "undeniable?" The inexperienced and uneducated? Admitted hoax biased newbs not qualified in the topic in the first place? Grandiose claims made by wannabes are just as common as they are flimsy, and fail to impress anyone.
Let alone those of us who actually are professionally trained. We do DENY your moronic evidence, and have been refuting it (with ease) for years.
Save the cliches for amateurs, and dont pretend you're one of us.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreading,
First of all I would like to thank shanedk the host of this channel to let me upload my videos.
Also I like to thank NASA and ESA and new scientist as sources.
Last but not least I like to say a word of respect to STM.
As you will understand the debate is finished, there is just one question left you never answered. A or B.
Final word,
Travelstickcouk has a long history of exposing fakers, hoaxers and liars. The STM file has not particularly challenged me.
Peace.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dont engage in self-pleasure in a public place travel. ;)
That you've been asked repeatedly, and refused, to prove "space radiation," or "gamma," or on and on is undeniably proof that you have no idea what these words mean. ;)
Here are the facts you have not disputed:
A linked movie YOU provided had no information on "space" radiation. I quoted the line here to prove you screwed up. You never denied it. ;)
I quoted the CORRECT definition of Gamma. You never denied it.
This is getting old. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"long history"
Uh oh, NAME EM. ;)
How many 'fakers" have you exposed? I want names, dates, and threads where you can prove it.
And let us hope it was done more competently than your bellyflop here, where you refused to explain ANY position, refused to answer even rudimentary follow-up questions.
You mean cut and pasting dork webpages FAILED to prepare you for debate with an actual radiation professional? I cant imagine whatever went wrong with your master plan, ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"A or B"
The question you've refused repeatedly to repeat or provide a source for?
A question you're SO confident about you refuse to post any corroborating evidence in this thread where ALL could see it?
;)
I bet radiation engineers everywhere are just scared to DEATH. ;)
How many times did you refuse to post information on that question? A dozen or more? We'd just HATE to think it was a huge bluff that you had no idea about. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Travel, your new movie (which I wont watch for stated reasons), only has 8 hits.
A movie I uploaded around the same time have over 100 already and going fast.
Why is that? ;)
You mean people DONT go rushing to see the latest amatuer spew of an amatuer hoax bluffer?
Cant imagine why. ;)
The crowd voted travel, and you lost. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"Gamma"
BTW travel, since you bombed my question about "minimum threshold of deadly gamma," I thought I'd enhance your ignorance with another.
True or False
Gamma needs to be at a minimum level before its even posted as a "Radiation Area," LET alone be deadly.
What is that minimum level, under which Gamma isnt even considered "radiation?"
Find a quote from your cut and paste machine to refute me, or even answer, which we both know you wont. ;)
Leave science to scientists, not newbs.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
new video reponse on this channel for spreadingthemuse.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Comment removed
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse,
Mark Weyland is nonsensical?????
you make a joke of yourself brother.
I tell you everyone here will believe NASA and Mark Weyland.
SEE MY VIDEO RESPONSE M. Weyland is telling you that radiation in hospitals or nukeplants are difrent.
You claiming thing on wrong information.
Same for gamma you claimed that gamma didnt matter???
Now I have to prove gamma is deadly???
Me and my friend M Weyland exposed you as untrustworthy, its time for you to say sorry mate.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
I said your QUOTE was nonsensical.
YOU posted a link, promising it would prove "SPACE RADIATION."
But when watched, it talked about nothing of the kind. I quoted it myself here. So
A) You linked to the wrong quote, or
B) Your ignorance understands nothing about radiation.
A or B? ;)
How come I quoted the line of YOUR link and you didnt? You're obviously not very confident in it. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
If you have any video response, you'll link it right here or I wont watch it at all.
Frankly, your avoidance of every difficult question and obvious cut and pastes of words you dont understand makes you look like the worst of all possible fakers, and you have no idea how many times you've looked like an idiot.
I quoted your first link myself to prove it said nothing.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse,
Is using censorship, when someone ignors me or tells me to stop sending masages I willl stop. But to use cencorship and support it is very wrong. This man claims to be a teacher?
SpreadingtheMuse shame on you.
peace to you
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse cannot censor you here, this is not his channel.
But there is a youtube bug which frequently results in posts vanishing. It is very annoying and I wish they would fix it but no one is censoring you.
ytmoog 2 years ago
You are right mate, but it was on the spreading the muse channel that he censored me. Why? That will make you not a great man that has knoledge, but more a man that thinks he knows everything.
peace mate.
PS if it is done by a virus im the first to appoligise.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
I blocked you from my channel because you refused my requests to keep our discussions public.
I asked politely to stop sending PMs and you continued, despite my request, to act rudely.
Since you proved your inability to heed adult requests, you were blocked.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
If it was on his channel, why are you complaining about it here?
ytmoog 2 years ago
Travel you are ignorant in the use of Youtube, for no user has any power to "censor," block, or otherwise remove ANY posts on a movie that is not his. This is not my movie, therefore it was physically impossible for me to have done anything.
You should inform yourself on the proper facts before making baseless accusations.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Uploaded video dedicated to Spreadingthemuse
I just tought that it would be easier to let NASA tell Spreadingthemuse, about difrent radiation in space . After waching the video please answer A or B?
A. You didnt know it (A sorry I was wrong and we dont talk about it anymore.)
B. You knew it, (than he is a hoaxer and can not be trusted any more)
Thank to NASA for releasing this clip on space radiation.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
There is NO different radiation in space.
Whatever you thought you heard is your obvious misunderstanding of big words you are neither educated nor experienced in, neither of which applies to me.
Given the option that
A) there's a "space" radiation that exists in no Radiation Text that I can find, or
B) You dont understand what you're hearing in frantic attempts to cut and paste jargon from NASA you've never heard before in your life, and are goofing it up-
B) is the far more likely option.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
through THOUGHT alone that.......Bart Sibrel (Sorry I meant B.S.) is EXACTLY the sort of person to go and get fake credentials to bust into a secure home for people with terminal illnesses, annoy the residents repeatedly to swear on a bible that they don't want to die, and then file lawsuits against their estates when they do die, because he will have video of them clearly swearing on a bible that they don't want to die, when they go and do the exact opposite, which is die. THE LIARS!!!!!!
gforce527 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse and Shanedk, I know you hear it enough, but I still gotta say it you guys rock! After watching some video of Bart Sibrel (who should be referred to by everbody by his initials only) pissing off astronaut Alan Bean, he REALLY got me thinking......And after a few hours of hard labor (I work in a small grocery store) It came to me (sadly, not scientific enough to qualify and quantify for you guys, but it still came to me nonetheless) I discovered through THOUGHT alone that........
gforce527 2 years ago
Again and again spreadingtheMuse is wrong. The next quote
"I've got my radiation safety manual right here,"
Great that it is complete useles for space radiation he is not telling you.
Prove that he is wrong, watch?v=oeKs826uplM at 2:30
That means
A. he didnt know it ( A sorry I was wrong and we dont talk about it anymore.)
B. He knew it, (than he is a hoaxer and can not be trusted any more)
Lets solve this problem first before you claim anything else. It A or B spreadingtheMuse?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"Space radiation"???
Okay, tell us: what's the difference between "space radiation" and regular radiation?
shanedk 2 years ago
Unfortunately for monkeyman, HIS ramblings are only the same 5 words over and over and over ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
The threat to sue me, sockpuppet.
shanedk 2 years ago
And, there we have the inherent cowardice. Make a threat, then back down like a frightened puppy...
shanedk 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse
Do you know ALTEA project of ESA?
"We still do not know if seeing a flash means that cells in the retina or even the brain are being damaged. ALTEA will go some way to answering these questions. It will also help to monitor cosmic ray levels on board the ISS generally, even when the Altea helmet is not being worn."
ESA tells you "We still do not know" you are controdict ESA so what is your source?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"we still dont know"
SO WHAT? You've convoluted your own point and jumped thru so many hoops to avoid admitting that you know nothing about radiation that your posts are now incomprehensible. You've quoted nothing from ESA that is remotely relevant. And these are obvious stall tactics to avoid my simple questions.
My "source" BTW, is the Nuclear Worker Training Program, whose tenants and calculations keep workers alive in Nuke plants every day. ;)
Pity you never took it like I did, ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
ESA,
Radiation in space is deadly without protection.
ESA is aware of this radiation and is doing experiments at the iss.
ESA tells also thatspace travel is letal to man without protection. ESA is the leading space agency. They will probelly be the first to go for real to the moon.
Again my video response is shown how little some astranouts know about the van Allen belt and space radiation.
dont you think so SpreadingtheMuse?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Comment removed
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Did you go to the ESA website as I adviced you.
Let me help you A little.
ESA
"the astronauts would have to retreat to a specially designed shelter built into the spacecraft, otherwise the radiation levels would be LETHEL."
and
"Space radiation is out there but we can find ways to live with it!"
I will upload a other video response for you, so you can feel smart again.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"LETHEL"
But over HOW MUCH TIME?
Theres that pesky exposure per time question again. ;) The one you prove your newbishness on.
You see, gieger counters give their readings in units of "rem per hour," meaning any claim of BIG SCARY WORDS like "lethal" are nonsensical without a timeframe to quantify it.
Thats what REAL nuke workers learn about, but if you still think watching a 30 sec vid makes you an expert, good luck, I'm sure that'll work out well for you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
From the moment they are in space till the moment they are back. That is not dificult to answer SpreadingtheMuse?
Again Im suprised the little knowledge you show.
Not only the van Allen belts also outside there are deadly radiations. There is no discusion about that in the science world SpreadingtheMuse.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"moment in space til come back"
BZZZZT Wrong answer. ;)
Rad levels are different in different areas, based on angle to the sun, and oh, lest we forget, this all powerful all scary and dark evil VAN ALLEN BELT that you like to newbishly quote. Except now you're trying to avoid it?
Well THATS informative. ;)
If you cant quote the rad levels
1) In normal space
2) Van Allen
3) Moon surface (all three will be different)
and the time spent in each place, then you're bluffing again.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"deadly"
OH NO! They're 'DEADLY"
Is that an official technical term? ;)
See, I've got my radiation safety manual right here, and whereas it uses "rem" and "rad" and "exposure time," I cant seem to find "DEADLY" anywhere.
I guess that means its a stall word to avoid admitting you have NO IDEA what the exact rad levels are, and have no idea how to find out. So you hide your ignorance behind corny cliches hoping to not be embarrassed as a phony any further.
Buddy, its WAY too late. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse
haha Again and again you show your knoledge. But the wrong radiation safety manual sorry to rock your boat again. Dont believe me watch?v=oeKs826uplM
NASA is telling you the answer at 2:30 in to the video. The right manual look it up again.
It can happen dont worry Im also wrong some times but not this time.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
A "wrong" manual you've never read or even heard of? ;)
DESPITE your earlier claims of being an expert in radiation? Until you were given rudimentary questions on any freshman exam and bombed them in public? ;)
Why do you refuse to give values for what you claimed to already know? Exposing you as a newb is getting old, so I'll do it jsut one more time:
Can you or can you not:
1) Identify the EXACT DOSE received by the men during their journey?
2) Identify the DOSE RATE of that time?
No? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse
Again it starts to gets pathetic mate.
The "deathly" it was in the quote from ESA
As I told you?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
"deathly"
OH MY GOD! Its "deathly!" ;)
Good thing they didnt say "Voldemort" or we'd be in BIG trouble. ;)
We're so glad you can cut and paste words you dont understand on a topic you're not educated in. You havent posted a word yet that wasnt obviously ten years past your education level.
Lets put the challenge this way:
I've worked a Nuclear power plant and Nuclear engineering center. Can you point to any HOAX KOOK who can say the same? Or are you limited to cut and pastes? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Again SpreadingtheMuse,
Deadly quote from ESA.
"During the Apollo missions of the 1960s70s, the astronauts were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major solar eruption that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation. Essentially, they took risks and got away with it."
If you disagree with the word deadly or this quote just contact ESA and tell them you live story mate.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
We don't disagree, we merely don't see the point. There were LOTS of risks that were taken. The risks of not dying due to a CME were mitigated both by the relative rarity of such an event happening in their direction and the fact that they were only in space for a few days. A longer-term mission would have more to worry about from this, but as it stood from Apollo, there were a LOT of other risks that they took.
shanedk 2 years ago
shanedk,
Do you agree that earth radiation is defrent than space radiation?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
There are indeed many types of radiation. Each of which have different properties and dangers.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Yes, but you find them anywhere. While there are different things in space that generate the different kinds of radiation, there's not a whole separate category of "space radiation."
shanedk 2 years ago
The inner Van Allen belt does contain high energy protons which is not a form of radiation commonly found on earth.
But they are not especially dangerous being fairly easy to shield against.
Then you have the very high energy cosmic rays (more protons) but there are not enough of those to be significant for trips lasting less than a year.
ytmoog 2 years ago
well phrased mate, inner belt protons.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Yeah, funny how you never said that until someone else did.
Besides, none of the Apollo craft ever went through the inner belt, so this is all irrelevant anyway.
shanedk 2 years ago
Indeed.
The protons are easily stopped by even thin layers of aluminium or polycarbonate.
The inner belt has mainly protons in the 10-50 MeV range. A 100 MeV proton can be stopped by 4 mm of aluminium.
Then you have to factor in that the Apollo missions only passed through the edges of the inner belt briefly.
Far from deadly.
ytmoog 2 years ago
And after the van Allen belts is no radiation any more?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
There is radiation everywhere.
Right now you are being bombarded by the stuff and there is a good chance you have been directly hit by several cosmic rays while you read this.
What is important is the dose.
ytmoog 2 years ago
What do you think happens when you after the van allen belts, with a "shielding" of aluminium made in 1969.
To start with Alfa Beta and the Gamma rays? You know its a problem.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Alpha radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper.
Beta radiation can by stopped by thin aluminium.
With X-Rays and gamma rays it depends very much on the energy of them. Lower energy X Rays can be stopped easily by a few inches of air.
The high energy protons which make up the inner VAB are also fairly easily stopped. A 100 MeV proton will be stopped by 4 mm of aluminium.
In short even minimal shielding will stop the vast majority of radiation found in the VABs and in space.
ytmoog 2 years ago
"You know its a problem. "
It IS a problem, but not an insurmountable one.
For short trips such as the Apollo missions it was not a huge problem, It Will be a big issue for any prospective Mars mission due to the length of time such a trip would take.
In short, for a week or two the radiation in space is not a problem. For a year or two it becomes a larger problem.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Why is NASA and ESA disagree with you?
They take radiation as a big problem to go to the moon.
NASA and ESA are talking about special rooms in the spacecraft, that protect the astronauts if radiation hits them.
This is the moon mission.
Just a apollo hull of 1/8" aluminium is all they had to protect them from radiation.
peace brother
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
The new missions originally planned for stays of months or years rather than a few hours the Apollo missions had.
Like I said :
In short, for a week or two the radiation in space is not a problem. For a year or two it becomes a larger problem.
Staying out for a year would be a big problem, which would require better shielding. For the short Apollo missions they did not.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Mate,
NASA is talking about a two day stay on the moon?
You like the link to that I will be happy to give it to you after my holydays end of august. Or just go to the nasa website if you dont want to wait.
respect brother
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
No,
The plans initially called for a permanently manned luner base.
That got cut back due to cost, but the plans still call for missions lasting a number of months.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Two days is shorter than Apollo managed.
Current plans for constellation call for up to 210 day missions.
From the nasa webpage:
"Orion will start out supporting week-long missions and then will be able to support up to 210-day missions when astronauts eventually live and work at outposts on the moon."
ytmoog 2 years ago
Just watch what NASA tells you in the next video.
watch?v=oeKs826uplM
5:15 in to the video
Im on holiday now.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Apollo had a maximum stay of 3 days.
The new missions can for stays of 210 days.
Please tell me you understand that 210 is a much larger number than 3.
Because they are spending so much longer in space; radiation is a much larger issue.
Do you follow?
ytmoog 2 years ago
As for that video, it sounds like a space primer for 6 year olds.
In reality things are far more complex than your simplistic view of the issue.
ytmoog 2 years ago
The guy talking in that video is the SRAG manager for NASA. His team is responseble for the radiation levels for the astronauts.
I think with respect, in this field you are no match to him.
But I would love to see counter information on the nasa website that tels that Mark Weyland is wrong.
peace mate
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Let me try once more.
Radiation is a bigger issue for the new planned Moon and Mars missions because they are many times LONGER.
Do you follow?
Apollo had a maximum stay of 3 days.
The new moon missions can for stays of 210 days.
A Mars mission would take several years, 600+ days.
210 is much bigger than 3.
You do understand that 210 is bigger than 3 right?
Because they are spending so much longer in space; radiation is a much larger issue.
Do try to follow.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Let me asking than what is Mark weyland telling than? a two day sv on the moon or what? Can you please react on what he meant there, a two day sv on the moon?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
sv?
Sorry I do not follow your post.
ytmoog 2 years ago
No where in that video did Weyland say the new missions would last 2 days.
What he said was that they were using a technique to predict periods clear from solar flares for 2 days. And that those two days would be used for EVAs.
Solar flares are a bigger danger for the new moon missions because they will spend far more time on the moon.
Apollo had a maximum stay of 3 days.
The new moon missions plan for stays of 210 days.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Did you hear M Weyland telling about the difrence of radiation on earth and in space?
Apollo is very doubt full as there is no real prove for the apollo landings.
In that presective The 2 days of M Weyland are even more intresting.
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
I question whether you heard or understood anything he was saying.
He was talking about solar flares, which could pose a risk to an astronaut in orbit or on the moon.
The Apollo missions were very short so as to minimise the risk.
The new lunar missions are many many times longer, so it is harder to avoid them.
You do understand that 210 days is far longer than 3?
ytmoog 2 years ago
"no real prove"
Apart from the recent images taken from lunar orbit showing the landers and even the tracks left by the astronauts.
Apart from the hundreds of kilograms of rock, dust and core samples taken which have been studied by thousands of scientists worldwide.
Apart from the tracking data of the many countries and observatories which tracked the missions in great detail.
Apart from the thousands of images and hundreds of hours of video taken.
And all the rest...
ytmoog 2 years ago
In the little video M. Weyland tells us that hospital or nukeworkers are exposed to very difrent kind of radiation as nasa is consurned about in space. Do you agree with him?
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Apart from, proof.
The rock samples do not mach the ESA experiment with smart1?
the imigages of the new lunar orbiter show nothing at all.
The data and tracking information was povided by nasa and only nasa?
All images and videos are also only provided by nasa and strange anough not all of them, even not to top scentist in the world.
When NASA want to proof there claim of putting a man on the moon, why they have a probleem of releasing matirial?
peace to you
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Professional photographers pointed out the LEM in the new orbital pictures.
Are you now going to pretend to be as smart as them? You can only be caught bluffing so many times. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
M Weyland did not say ANYTHING about the "difference" between radiations.
I quoted the exact sec you linked to.
A) Did you link the wrong sec? or
B) In ignorance, not understand what he said?
A or B? ;)
Until you quote his exact line, I'm afraid I'm still proven right. ;)
Its incompetence like yours that proves the stupidity of hoax "truthers." There is no evidence for a fake not based in the illiteracy of amatuers like you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"No match for him"
I think that you are in no position to UNDERSTAND him. You're trying to filter experienced jargon thru your under-educated mind and much is obviously being lost in translation.
I, on the other hand, being experienced and educated in proper terminology, do understand him.
And at no point does he say "There's a SPACE radiation that does not exist on Earth."
A direct quote of that is the only proof I'll accept.
But, you do not understand a word he says.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Spreadingthemuse
I believe NASA and not you when it comes to space travel and radiation.
Mark Weyland is not a hoaxer as you claim. You have his direct quote in my video. A or B spreadingthemuse.
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
You have quoted absolutely NOTHING from any source, NASA or otherwise, that contradicts a single word of what I've said about radiation.
The ridiculousness of your links to other hoax movies makes me believe you didnt even watch the movies yourself, as they said nothing either to contradict me.
Since I've asked repeatedly for a direct quote and you've failed to provide, I have no confidence that you have any credible information.
Quote a direct fact or admit failure.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
" A or B"
I watched the vid at the exact sec you linked, and surprise, there is NOTHING there to refute me. ;)
Your ignorance of radiation is obvious, as you spelled alpha radiation "ALFA," (snicker).
That means you've only HEARD the word, never READ it or SEEN it in any science text or safety analysis.
Could this be the quintessential example of a hoax quack doing nothing but watching a 30 sec vid and pretending that makes him an expert? ;)
Was opening a legitimate text too hard for you?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
It gets time to answer the question Spreadingthemuse.
A or B,
Mark Weyland in the 30 sec video is SRAG manager for NASA, and a expert in radiation in space.
Did you claim somthing you have no knoledge of but just try to lie your way out of it?
What kind of a teacher are you, that goes in attack mote instead of explaming things.
I tell you everyone here will believe NASA and Mark weyland as the expert.
Thank you NASA for exposing Spreadingthemuse
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Mark Weyland has been quoted as saying NOTHING that refutes a word I've ever said. I clicked that link YOU provided and that said NOTHING as well.
I even copied the exact line here to prove it said nothing.
Do YOU even know what he said? I've accused you of not even watching the video you yourself linked and you didnt deny it.
Makes you wonder. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Why did you spell Alpha as "ALFA?"
True or false, you'd never SEEN the word before in any text or education, rather just heard it and tried to repeat it in a phony cut and paste? ;)
I can keep asking this as long as you keep avoiding it. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I'm still waiting to hear the exact quote from NASA that proves anything. For even YOUR OWN link, which I quoted here earlier, was nonsensical.
If the quote was so stupendous, surely you'd have no fear of quoting it and would even jump at the chance. But since we have to twist your arm, and since your first link was a dumb bomb, its increasingly obvious you've GOT no quote. ;)
This is your dumb attempt to save face in an argument ten years past your education.
Post the quote or admit fakery.