One of my favorites is where the conspiracy nuts will show the video where the one astronaut is asking the other if he can throw his rock hammer. The other one gives permission, saying "don't hit the lem" and the transmitter circuit bounces (try releasing the talk button on an old analog walkie talkie, you'll hear a click from the current in the circuit "bouncing") which they interpretted as a "p" They think he's saying "don't hit the lamp" meaning the movie studio lamp. What bullshit.
@luccaskunk And then there's the one where they say the flag was waving in the wind... Seriously? They've obviously never seen the footage if they think that's the case.
@luccaskunk They want stars to show up in pictures where exposure is set for sunlit objects. They see shadows falling on a curved surface and imagine multiple lights could do that. They see dust kicked up by the tires of the rover and imagine that sand looks the same. They see antennas sticking off at angles and imagine wires. They have a space craft in geostationary low earth orbit. They see the LEM take off and expect sparks and smoke like a Buck Rogers movie. The list is very long.
@knowledgemonger Yeah, i know all of those, but those aren't my favorites. Then there's the mountains, they see the same extremely distant mountain chain in the background at two different locations and expect the vista to change drastically when ironically there's enough parallax between the two vistas to get a 3d image of the mountains and they call it a 2D backdrop painting.
@luccaskunk Some people have never ridden in a car on a long trip near some mountains. Basically everyone has been outdoors on a sunny day. This makes the "shadows at angles" my favorite bit of bad logic by the other side. Just looking around themselves, on a sunny day, they could see the same thing happen. It shows a lack of more than mere knowledge. There is a lack of curiosity that runs so deep that they don't even look and notice the obvious.
@knowledgemonger I've actually replicated the shadows thing at a dry lake bed near the Sierra Madre, not far from Edwards Airforce Base. It was, as far as you could see, a completely flat plane of dry lake bed. However, shadows in the distance appeared to be at a different angle than shadows closer to the camera, despite the only light source being the sun at 4pm in the summer.
@luccaskunk So long as there are no trees or light poles to give away the true vertical, the effect is not hard to have happen. The objects need to be far enough away that the distance between your eyes is very small or you have to close one eye or take a picture. A dray lake bed will work very well. So will grasses on a surface. In both cases the texture subtle and varies constantly. There is nothing to let you see the contour of the ground.
The constant back-and-forth arguments are (at least, in my opinion) totally pointless. The fact is that many people tend to believe what they want to believe, and no amount of logic or evidence to the contrary will persuade them into changing their opinions on what they see as the Pure Undeniable Truth.
Conspiracy theorists are a prime example of this. A conspiracy theorist, to me, is simply another form of fanatic...I'd go deeper into this, but it seems that I have just about run out of space
@graywolf83, I appreciate your point. Please don't misunderstand--I argue "band-and-forth" not to persuade the person I'm arguing with. I'm well-aware of the fanatical commitment of my opponent. I'm also very conscious that an entire generation did not experience Apollo, often has a weak grasp of science and needs to see a logical and rational defense of real things. I consider that demonstration for on-lookers to be a valuable endeavor.
@LunarTuner At least in one case, your pointing out that what the other person has been saying appears to have been part of why they went away and stopped saying it (at least for a while) This suggests that perhaps you have effected the absolute certainty of the person making the bogus claims. It didn't stick but at least there was a pause in the nonsense.
@kernzyp, I used a DVD of the film, "Apollo 17: On the Shoulders of Giants". You're welcome to look high & low for another copy of this film from 1974 with these lines on it. Why the Canadian company that distributed the DVD would remaster it is beyond me, especially since these lines don't appear on any other copies of this footage. Check this: watch?v=domtyECeabA
What's your explanation for seeing these "wires" above, below and all over NASA films? Did they rig wires to grains of sand too?
@LunarTuner grains of sand do not need help. people do. they fall over like drunk children, then act like a turtle on their back until they get yanked up. visible wires or not. countless examples out there.
watch?v=ymlwb76ZeiI
tell me how this dude gets up without using his arms or legs??
@kernzyp I've seen that video. Anyone who has experience walking on ice will know exactly how he regained his footing. On the moon, you can do it far more easily because of 1/6th G. It is just a question of looking what he does with his legs.
@knowledgemonger thats a poor answer. he gets lifted. he can't get up. end of. then he gets lifted. he doesn't hold the other astronaught, the other dude does not touch him. so, he cannot get up using his arms or legs, then he gets up on ONE LEG without assistance. watch closer. "can't get up using all his limbs, then gets up using one leg." impossible odds. would a one leg horse do better than a four legged one? at anything??
@kernzyp I have seen the video. What you describe is not what happened. You are suggesting that something can't be done in 1/6th G that I have personally done in one full G. Anyone who has walked on ice will understand what they are seeing. I suggest that if you are a fit person, you give it a try. You will see. The human leg can produce a force far greater than your weight.
@knowledgemonger i have ice skated, walked on ice and i was a bodybuilder. i know this stuff. if i was to try and propel myself with one foot which is not on it's sole (look close, it's on the laces part of boot), i would fail.
@kernzyp, imagine how hard it would be if you weighed only 60 lbs., but had the strength of a military man; you were already somewhat inclined because of a hill and you had your hand on someone else's shoulder. A little push with your hand and a kick with your leg--VERY PLAUSIBLE!
@kernzyp I could do it. I think it may be a matter of where on your body the C of G lands and how much power you can make with the muscles that straighten the leg. I never had a lot of upper body strength but could ride a bike at 45 MPH on the level without trouble. I also could go from sitting to standing on one leg. I'll be you built up your upper body by lifting weights. This would give you a high C of G.
@kernzyp You want scientific conclusive evidence? Look up Armalcolite.. then look up all the scientific studies on it.. all this crap about interpreting flashes as wires is weak evidence that is nothing conclusive vs the scientific evidence. If you can refute any of the studies, you will have caught my interest.
Anyone want to talk about the "OH MY GOD" particle discovered in 1991? Galactic cosmic ray detectors measured a 50 joule burst. Does anyone know how many rads 50 joules is? 5,000,000,000 rads. We detect gamma burst coming at us from all directions in space all the time. Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules. Does anyone know how many rads 5 joules is?500,000,000 rads. One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!
@SpreadingtheMuse 5 joules is 500 rad. Wrong 5 joules = 500,000,000 rads. Try googling joules to rad converter. I'm studying astrophysics now and what I see on the moon threads is a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about. Can you tell me what the "OH MY GOD" particle is? google it and tell me how many joules they detected in a galactic cosmic ray in 1991.
@Daddyo930, sorry to interrupt your conversation with STM, but you're saying that you've begun to study astrophysics and already you're making an assertion that no astrophysicist PhD. in the world is making (that Apollo astronauts would have died immediately)? Umm...I think I'd double-check your data. Just sayin'.
5 joules = 500 rads. We're raking you over the coals for your preposterous 500,000,000 rad statement. If you got THAT out of a rad converter then you screwed up royally.
I taught both physics and astronomy, and know that "galactic cosmic ray" is a NEWB SCI FI term. Radiation is alpha, beta, xray etc. You might be reading articles about astrophysics that have been dumbed down for the public, not knowing that they were dumbed down.
@SpreadingtheMuse Use the following calculator to convert between joules/gram and rads. If you need to convert joules / gram to other units, please try our universal Radiation - Absorbed Dose Unit Converter. When you convert 5 joules / gram to rads, you get 500,000. If you have a problem with that conversion you should take it up with unitconversion
@krisdevalle Is that all you have left? Pitiful. Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. Google it. 5 joules/kilogram = 500 rads. Death. 50 joules/gram =5,000,000 rads. Death. The gamma ray burst we are talking about here are measured in joules/gram not kilogram. Either method of measurement equals death anyway so what are you talking about. Can anyone survive 500 rad exposure over 3 days?
@krisdevalle Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. Who runs that website? Is that information peer reviewed? It's all based off Einstein's E=mc2 theory. You have to be able to convert mass to energy to make calculations. Can you accept that? 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads. How can someone have a website devoted to unit conversion and be wrong? Wouldn't some reputable organization step up and expose the frauds? Now your just running around in circles. Tell me how many rads in 5 joules/gram?
@Daddyo930 Get your work reviewed bro. I think you are afraid of someone who knows what they are talking about, telling you that you have made a lot of mistakes.
@krisdevalle Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table, run by some webmaster is based off of Einsteins E=mc2 theory. Checkmate. In order to disprove that 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads, you would have to disprove Einstein's theory. Good luck.
@Daddyo930, Dude, no one disputes that a gram of mass receiving 5 joules has received 500,000 RADs. But do you know an a-naut who weighs a gram? I weigh 85,000 grams. "Absorbed Dose Conversion Table" asks to enter a fraction: 5/85,000, which is .00005882. Convert that to RADs & it means I have received 5.882 RAD. If I were an a-naut in a spacecraft or in a multi-layered spacesuit, I'm easily receiving less than 5 RAD.
You found an online tool. A tool is only good if you know how to use it.
@LunarTuner Wrong. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. 5 joules/gram really means every gram on your body will recieve 5 joules. Your intepretation of the conversion chart is wrong. Your just playing games.
@Daddyo930, BRILLIANT QUOTE! It should be in Wikipedia! Oh...it already is. If you cut/paste, at least use something relevant!
YOU started by saying, "Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules." A joule is just a unit of energy. The expression "joule/gram" is an ABSORBED DOSE. DIVIDE the unit of energy by its mass--not MULTIPLY! (thus the / ). 5 joules divided by the tissue mass of an avg. man (85kg) = .0005882. Converted to RADs, that's 5.882 RAD.
@LunarTuner Wrong. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. That means exposure of one gram on your 85kg body of flesh to 1 joule/gram of energy and you die. Weight and mass of the target is irrelevent.
@Daddyo930, "Weight and mass of the target is irrelevant." :D You're a trip! You're seriously saying that finding an absorbed dose (joule/gram or RAD) has nothing to do with the mass of what absorbs it? That's like saying 80 mph has nothing to do with time!
Do you have kids? I hope not. SAD! You find a Wikipedia article, misread it & publicly declare a discovery that turns back centuries of scientific study of energy. I beg you to call a physics PhD and have a chat. Embarrassing!
@Daddyo930 I see that you are posting your same mistakes all over the place on youtube. You don't understand the subject and made a very obvious blunder in this claim that in this case, I won't bother to correct. The correction can be found elsewhere on youtube. I think that you are so determined to disprove the Apollo landings that you simply won't allow the facts to get in your way. You have piled error upon error and in spite of people correcting you you repeat the errors.
@knowledgemonger What specific mistakes are you talking about? E=mc2. That equation lets you convert mass into energy. Is that incorrect? If E=mc2 is true then the Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table is correct because it is based on E=mc2. Tell me how I just fucked up now.
@Daddyo930 In another video I commented on some of the mistakes you are making. Just because you know E=MC^2 is a fact doesn't mean that you have the slightest clue about what that equation means to the subject at hand or how to apply it. You can convert mass to energy and back and forth to your hearts desire but that has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a rad. We can save a lot of time if you just use this simple rule:
If you think you have disproved Apollo you are wrong.
@knowledgemonger Fine. Just answer this question. Can astronauts fly through a solar flare? November 14, 1969 apollo takes off for the moon. So did a solar flare. Total mission time for apollo 12, 89 hours. Total exposure time to M6 and X4 class solar flares, 23 hours. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 96. Column 5, page 96 represents duration in hours. Total duration of solar flares for mission, 23 hours.
@Daddyo930 You don't understand the subject well enough to see that you haven't even asked the question correctly. The Apollo crew took a slight increase in cancer risk and nothing more.
@knowledgemonger Can an astronaut in 1969 fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares? Is that what your asking me to believe? Do you believe that aluminum and plastic can shield you against M6 and X4 class solar flares? Will you even acknowledge that the astronauts took off when a solar flare erupted?
@Daddyo930 I am pointing out that yu don't know enough about the subject to even really understand the question you are asking. This is why I suggested in the other video that you go look up some information about what a solar flare is before you continue the discussion.
@knowledgemonger A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 10^25 joules of energy[1] (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). Is this wrong because it's from Wikipedia. What source should I use when looking up solar flares?
@Daddyo930 You made the right start. Now look up how far away the sun is. Basically you have fallen into the trap of "there are lions in Africa, even though that is a different place, the lion might eat me." The sun is 93 million miles away. Mostly it sends light in our direction. It also sends charged particles as the solar wind. Neither light nor the charged particles (by time they get here) are strong enough to go through a sheet of aluminum foil.
@Daddyo930 - Did you know that an X7 solar flare 5 days ago (almost twice as powerful as the X4 you keep going on about) has come and gone with negligible effects here on earth? The CME missed us, and even if we had a glancing blow, the effects would have been minor. Now if it had been earth-directed, that would have been a different story. And an increase in the intensity of aurora usually marks such events reaching earth's magnetic field. Was an increase noted at any time during Apollo 12?
@MTMind2 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 87. Column 7: Heliocentric position of the LDE flare, the second line giving the heliographic longitude of the LDE flare. According to this data, it appears that apollo 12 flew right through an X4 class solar flare. I would say that's impossible because they would have died from radiation exposure very quickly.
@Daddyo930 - Nope, you're assuming Apollo 12 was in the direct path just as you assumed ALL solar flares are a danger to astronauts. I asked for evidence of an X4 flare that was earth-directed, not simplistic assumptions. So try again. Specify the actually flare involved with a link to evidence that it resulted in a CME producing high-speed particles that bombarded the earth, and hence the astronauts. You're the one making the claim, so you provide the evidence.
@Daddyo930 You are not qualified to say whether anyone would have died from any level of exposure. You have made such an endless stream of errors on the subject that really you should stop posting and embarrassing your self. There are lots of satellites up in orbit outside the Van Allen belt that have been up there while a great many solar flares have come and gone. If these solar flares were the sort of death ray you suggest how are they still working?
@knowledgemonger I am studying astrophysics and I think I can confidently say that if you are exposed to 60 to the 25th power joules of energy, your gonna die real quick. The physics of nuclides indicates that they don't remain localized at the site of exposure. The radioactive element continues to find healthy cells and destroy them eventually corrupting the organs of the subject and leading to death. Amputation of the affected limb seems to be the only way to stop exposure from spreading.
@Daddyo930 You have made error after error after error in conversions. Nobody should take your numbers seriously. If you are studying astrophysics in a school, expect to flunk out badly.
You can't do conversions and you are completely ignoring the facts. You also seem to hold some witchcraft views about how radiation does its damage. You are embarrassing yoruself in public.
@knowledgemonger According to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude data provided in Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971, apollo 12 flew through M3 and X5 class solar flares for 12+ hours. NASA astrophysics data system published this report. Did they get the heliocentric and heliogaphic longitude of the solar flares wrong?
@Daddyo930 Just for good measure you make sure to post the same proof that you don't know what you are talking about in more than one place. Over in the other video, your claim about the radiation from the flare has already been debunked by someone else. He appears to have bothered to post the real numbers rather that just point out that you have it absolutely and totally wrong. You don't even know enough about the subject to see that your claims have been disproved.
@knowledgemonger, Whether his Harvard chart's data is correct or not (as if anyone has a solar observatory & has taken 60 yrs of daily solar data!), Irrelevant! The solar flare classes during A 12 wouldn't have been lethal even if they were stronger & the a-nauts were on the lunar surface. Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It recounts a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated over 100 MeV. Physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta calls it non-lethal.
@LunarTuner - Thanks for that, an excellent find and a key point, because no matter how much we 'armchair experts' may think we know and use our limited knowledge to argue the point here on youtube, what we really need to do is to listen to the experts in the field, ie. what the physicists say. :)
@knowledgemonger So why didn't you bother posting the "numbers" here? Let me ask you a question. Has the american government ever lied to it's people in the past? Yes. Some examples would be the Tuskege experiment, Watergate, Iran-Contra just to name a few. I see no good reason to believe an organization that takes in NAZI scientist instead of putting them on trial for war crimes. I believe numbers because they don't lie. People will lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Numbers won't.
@Daddyo930, is there a government on earth that hasn't used lying or deceit within its structure? Does someone's lie in a gov't mean everyone in the gov't lies? Does it mean the government lies in every respect, all the time?
Rather than fomenting paranoia & conspiracy behind everything you don't understand, why don't CTs spend time getting an education in objective disciplines like math & science so they can make independent investigations & judgements instead of tickling every fear they have?
@LunarTuner That's why I believe in the numbers and not some jackass who gets paid to lie. You can't pay numbers to lie. You can manipulate them but your gonna get busted sooner or later and the truth will come out. That catalogue was very hard to find on the internet. It's not like NASA is flaunting this information in everyone's face. As a matter of fact, they even admit they can't go back to the moon now. Your totally busted. People will do almost anything for money.
@Daddyo930, your numbers aren't wrong--your analysis of them is wrong! I quoted a Physics PhD (physics don't lie either) whose analysis of the flares shows that they would not kill anyone. You ignored that. I assume you can find another physics PhD who can analyze your numbers to show that they WOULD kills someone? Go for it! I have no reason to believe YOUR analysis (nothing personal).
@LunarTuner If you agree that people will say anything for money then you would understand what I am about to say now. Everyone knows the amount of energy involved in an X5 class solar flare. Those numbers don't lie. We know about the levels of radiation exposure before death. Those numbers don't lie. Anyone who tries to say that you can fly through an X5 class solar flare is an intellectual prostitute. People lie, numbers don't.
@Daddyo930 "We know about the levels of radiation exposure before death." Really? Did you get that info from an astrophysicist? I did! I quoted Dr. Francis Cucinotta saying that 100 MeV (greater than what your x5 would create) An X7 would expose an a-naut to 50 Rem. That isn't enough to cause radiation sickness. "But it would not at been fatal." A PHYSICISTS WORDS!
Do you dispute him? If so, quote another physicist! Because as you say, "people lie." So, why should we listen to you?
@LunarTuner So fine. Here are my numbers on energy released in an X5 class solar flare. The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time. Thats from NASA's "What is a solar flare". 10^27 ergs/second = 1.0 × 10^20 joules/second = Ten to the twentieth is a huge number so I'll just use 100000 joules = even at 100,000/kilogram it works out to 10,000,000 rads. That's what kind of energy is in an X5 class solar flare. NASA says it.
@LunarTuner NASA is not the only one doing studies of solar flares. Many universities have studied solar flares and their numbers are the same. Would you like some references to universities that do studies on solar flares and look at the numbers they are reporting? NASA lied about sending men to the moon. They have not lied about the dangers of radiation in space. Their motto is As Low As Reasonably achievable. The acknowledment of the truth about radiation is admission of the moon mission lie
@Daddyo930, Dr. Cucinotta says an x7 is not dangerous enough to kill a man on the moon. Dr. Cucinotta works for NASA. You say, NASA has "not lied about the dangers of radiation in space." Therefore, you believe Dr. Cucinotta...
...or perhaps all these physicists are saying the same thing, but you hear only what you want to.
@LunarTuner I don't trust people. I trust numbers. Solar flares contain radioactive elements found on the periodic table. Some of the half lives are in decades. Your trying to tell me that by the time a solar flare reaches here in about a day or so that the radioactivity of that element has been reduced to the point that it is harmless? Really? I hope you don't expect me to believe that. Radioactive elements with half lives over 2 days makes the manned mission to the moon impossible. BUSTED!
@LunarTuner Dr. Cucinotta never talked about radioactive decay either. Every solar flare has radioactive elements in it. There is no way all of the radioactive elements would have decayed to the point of being harmless in the day or two it take for solar flares to reach earth. Some are as fast as 38 minutes. That's why you guys run away from radiation. There is no explaining the half life degredation to zero in two days. 93 million miles in two days in not enough to degrade all the radiation.
@Daddyo930 The American government lies all the time. The Apollo space craft went to the moon. The two are both true facts. One does not cancel the other because we can check each and prove that each is true. I don't say that Apollo went to the moon just because the government of the US said it did. Lots of people all round the world have independent proof.
You believe numbers but you sure as heck don't know what to do with them. You have made lots of errors on conversions etc.
@Daddyo930 I have yet to see a case of Mendelevium being seen in solar flares. For that matter, there is a very rapid fall off in the amounts with atomic number. For that matter, I also don't think it has been seen in a cosmic ray. The Sun being a modest sized second generation one does not do much in the way of making things beyond helium. Other stars do better at it.
@knowledgemonger You should check NASA before making statements like that. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Is NASA wrong? I told you that all the elements, including the radioactive ones, are in our sun, solar flares and galactic cosmic rays. Is this true or not?
@Daddyo930 You just changed the question. You asked: "Is it true that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares?" Now you want to reduce it to only the natural elements. The answer I gave was correct. You really need to go study up on these subjects before you comment any further. You are making more errors.
@Daddyo930 Over in the other video I responded to you at greater length
Others: Google on mendelevium and look back through Daddyo930's posts to see his blunder on this subject. He is also making and argument like "an ocean full of water can drown you, there is a light rain outside so you can't go out there or else you will drown" He simply can't understand the numbers and units of measure involved in talking about radiation so he gets things horridly wrong all the time.
@knowledgemonger I will admit to you now that I have been wrong in other post. I wrongly posted the number of ergs per second as 27. It was actually 10 with 27 zeros. My fault. That would be 10000000000...do you really want me to count out the rest of the zero's in ergs per second? I thought 27 ergs per second was fatal. My mistake. We are actually talking about a number significantly larger than 27 ergs per second.
@Daddyo930 You can use scientific notation or engineering / computer notation for numbers that are far from 1, 2 and 3. It will work just fine. You don't understand the numbers. You are the classic case of someone who knows how to multiply but not when. Your errors have not been simple matters of getting the numbers wrong. It is that you don't understand the science. You have no grasp of what things like the rad unit of measure means.
@knowledgemonger I do understand unit conversion. In order to make calculations in astrophysics, you sometimes have to convert a unit of matter to energy. This method is supported by Einstein's E=mc2 theory. How can you tell me that I don't understand the science when I have been copying and pasting from NASA, Science Journal, Physics Journal and other peer reviewed articles? I went out, researched the info and copy and pasted what I thought was relevent.
@LunarTuner Is copy and pasting from NASA, Science Journal, Physics Journal and other peer reviewed papers prohibited? Are they not to be trusted as reputable sources of correct information? Whom would you like me to copy and paste from that would satisfy you? What sources would you like me to copy and paste from?
@Daddyo930, The problem is not your sources. The problem is that you don't understand what you're posting or you post it out of context.
If you believe NASA is correctly posting horrifyingly lethal space radiation data, but on the other hand they falsely Apollo took men to the moon, why not confront THEM with their inconsistency? Or, if you believe they are sometimes right & sometimes wrong, why do you assume their solar data is the correct thing? Do you compare it to your own measurements?
@LunarTuner The problem with your assertion is that you assume that only I have access to the data. Anyone with a little brains can download the free FV program from NASA. That program lets you gain access to their satellites that measure radiation in space, solar flares and galactic cosmic rays. The data is what it is. Numbers don't lie, people do. You could try and manipulate the data, but someone will figure it out and bust you. Most people can't figure out what they're looking at anyway.
@Daddyo930, So, you trust the data NASA gives you, but you don't trust a NASA physicist who tells you that the data does not mean Apollo astronauts would have died. Seems like you should contact these scientists and confront them! Why aren't you doing that? You could make some cash! Get a lawyer! A huge lawsuit! Get a book deal! Don't you realize that you may have your hands on the most valuable secret in history? Come on! Man up, Dude!
@LunarTuner Not even tempted in the least. When I was on tour in Japan with a band, I could have been a millionair several times over by now. Have you heard my music? I have had several opportunities to get a record deal. I turned them all down. My music is free. According to my calculations, the end of this reality draws nigh. Sooner than you think, the question of whether or not we are alone in the universe will be answered. Do you think we are alone in the universe or galaxy?
@Daddyo930 You have been copying and pasting but not understanding the things you copy and paste. You don't understand the subject. You apply E=MC^2 in the case of rads in a way that simply shows you don't understand. You copy and paste a statement in direct contradiction to your own statement and can't see your own error after it has been pointed out repeatedly and you have just finished pasting something that shows you are wrong.
@knowledgemonger The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] Additionally, in systems which have no momentum (or are viewed in their center of momentum frame), then the equation E = mc2 also continues to be correct. Mass–energy equivalence in either of these conditions means that mass conservation becomes a restatement, or requirement, of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Your wrong.
@knowledgemonger Lets try again. From NASA Space Environment: Solar flares emit radiation across virtually the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves at the long wavelength end, through optical emission to x-rays and gamma rays at the short wavelength end. This radiation can corrode equipment, overload cameras or MICAS, and expose humans to dangerous levels of rads. The more harmful radioactive elements on the periodic table can be found in solar flares. That good enough?
@LunarTuner Fine. From NASA's Cosmicicopia: Elements usually mean the elements of the periodic table, and the Sun contains all of the naturally occuring elements, although some are very, very rare. From NASA: X-class flares are by far the largest explosions in the solar system and are awesome to watch such flares and associated CMEs can create long lasting radiation storms that can harm satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies and power grids. Anything wrong?
@Daddyo930, Using quote marks would be helpful. That's standard.
To me, the "elements" issue means nothing. To me the question is whether deep spaceflight is deadly to humans.
No problem, but these words still don't establish that every X-class flare or CME is necessarily directed at earth or deadly. In fact, it goes on to say, "If they're directed at Earth..." implying they all are NOT. And, "With advance warning many satellites and spacecraft can be protected from the worst effects." DING!
@Daddyo930 You did a good start but you made some very serious errors still. There is for all practical purposes no gamma radiation from the sun. The electromagnetic waves shorter than UV are called X-ray if they are from electrons and gamma if they are from nuclei. There really is no distinction between gamma and Xray other than the source.
"The more harmful" etc is just flat wrong.
The "dangerous levels of rads" is also incorrect in that it is vague and not qualified.
@knowledgemonger So NASA is wrong when they say that solar flares emmit gamma rays? If you really want to talk about gamma rays, then galactic cosmic rays have gamma radiation in abundance. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime. These rays criscross the solar system in such a way as to seem a uniform block were it viewed in 3D. Galactic cosmic rays never stop and come from every direction in space. Your BUSTED!
@Daddyo930, no one has ever disputed the fact that solar energy and gamma rays can be dangerous and even deadly. Your failure is that you have never--at any point--shown that they are ALWAYS deadly or they were SPECIFICALLY deadly during and directed at any single Apollo mission. You have not connected your last dot, because you can't!
@Daddyo930 If NASA says that a solar flare has enough gamma rays to even be worth talking about then yes, they are wrong. It would surprise be to see them make that error but I can't rule it out.
Your "Tour BUSTED" comment is laughable. Nobody has been trying to tell you that there are no gamma rays in space. We have been just explaining things like the decrease as the square of distance and other things that makes the level that the Apollo crews were exposed to small.
@knowledgemonger The biggest flares are known as "X-class flares" based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength. The smallest ones are A-class (near background levels), followed by B, C, M and X. Similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, each letter represents a 10-fold increase in energy output. So an X is ten times an M and 100 times a C. Within each letter class there is a finer scale from 1 to 9. Tell NASA flying through that would be ok.
@Daddyo930 You are the one making the claim. Go look up the numbers for your self or go back through the comments and look for where someone has done the math for you. You will see that the amount of radiation that a person would get would not be enough to cause health problems. You have made the same mistake over and over. You simply won't look at the fairly simple math that shows that this idea you have is wrong. Even without the spacecraft to protect them it is not enough to kill.
@knowledgemonger No. Wikipedia is the one making the claim. In the past, it was believed that the cosmic ray flux has remained fairly constant over time. Recent research has, however, produced evidence for 1.5 to 2-fold millennium-timescale changes in the cosmic ray flux in the past forty thousand years. The amount of radioactive particles in space has increased, not decreased. One more time. In 1969, apollo 12 was not capable of flying through solar flares. Even NASA won't say that.
@Daddyo930 You are the one making the claim that there is enough radiation to be a health hazard. You haven't been able to come up with any numbers that support your claim. You have copied and pasted things that disagree with your claim. You are now trying to blame Wikipedia. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that you don't know enough about the subject to understand what the numbers mean and convert the units as needed.
@Daddyo930, Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It discusses a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated 100+ MeV. It quotes physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta:
"On the Moon, Cucinotta estimates, an astronaut protected by no more than a space suit would have absorbed about 50 rem of ionizing radiation. That's enough to cause radiation sickness. 'BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FATAL...'
So, if X7 wouldn't kill, an X4 during Apollo 12 wouldn't either.
@LunarTuner History has shown that people will do almost anything for money. They will lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Therefore I believe in numbers, not people who can be corrupted. Numbers can be manipulated, but sooner or later you will get caught. The numbers involved in solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the solar winds make any mission to the moon impossible without either massive shields or electromagnetic shields which we didn't have in 1969. Stop quoting people, Numbers.
@Daddyo930, you don't need to explain to me that conspiracy theorist are paranoid--I know this. As for the numbers, do you think you got the numbers without people?
True, people can manipulate #s. That's what you've done. That is, you don't understand the #s you have. Do you use a physics different than Dr. Cucinotta or any other physicist? You have no greater qualifications to show that radiation was lethal to Apollo. No physicists from anywhere disagrees with Cucinotta--just lame youtubers.
@LunarTuner What numbers did I get wrong? I have copied and pasted those numbers so I don't understand how I could have made an error. Galactic cosmic rays are 90 percent protons. Is that correct? If that's true then every galactic cosmic ray represents a solar proton event. Would that be correct if I were to make that assumption? Galactic cosmic rays come at us from every direction in space every second of every day. Solar flares happen about twice a week since 1969. How is this incorrect?
@Daddyo930, how many times do I need to explain this? What you have incorrect is your interpretation! Your analysis is incorrect! Your assumption that these levels would have killed Apollo astronauts is incorrect!
Your conclusion that radiation can be dangerous is NOT wrong. Your conclusion that it always kills anyone in deep space IS wrong! READ!: BAD ≠ DEADLY
@LunarTuner So you don't disagree that solar flares happen about twice a week? Good. Then do you agree that galactic cosmic rays happen every second of every day and that we don't have enough satellites in orbit to detect and measure them all? Or do you think galactic cosmic rays are rare events? The SWIFT satellite was able to detect 500 bursts in 5 years. That's only one satellite looking at a small section of sky.
@Daddyo930 Lions stalk in Africa. Water falls from the sky nearly every day. Haven't drown or been killed by a lion today. The Apollo crew was never subject to anything that did any more than give them a slight increase in cancer risk. Cosmic rays are not life threatening. I don't know where you got they idea that they were but it is simply false. A burst is just an increase from way too small to matter up to too small to matter.
@knowledgemonger The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). You have gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds to contend with. You have not convinced me that apollo could have survived all of that.
What wonderful science. You abandoned your numbers and quantifiable data for sheer emotionalism. Pathetic. (Boys and girls, let this be a lesson that physics should be left to people who understand physics.)
@LunarTuner Cmon! Just look at the map of gamma ray bursts that wikipedia has. JUST LOOK AT IT. That map says more than I could about how many gamma ray bursts are out there in space. So many that it looks like one big block. We would have to assume that the pattern extends out into space. There is no way you could navigate through that.
@Daddyo930 The mag of gamma ray bursters and their distances say something that you have not said not something you could not have said. You could very easily have said "gamma ray bursters are so far away that they don't matter to the health of a crew on a space craft". Notice that this correct statement fits very easily within the 500 character limit of youtube. Do you even understand the square law fall off?
@knowledgemonger The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is radiated outward radially in three-dimensional space from a point source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. That argument would save you if the amount of energy wasn't so incredibly massive. This does not apply to GCR's and gamma rays bursts
@Daddyo930 You are somehow suggesting that dividing a huge number by an extremely massive number that is orders larger doesn't lead to a small answer. You really have no grasp of physics or math if that is what you believe. The sources of the bursts are extremely far away. When you divide by the square of the distance you get proof that they don't matter to the health issues. You seem to be unwilling to understand the things that show that you are wrong. Just do the math and see.
@knowledgemonger I did say that the sources of gamma ray bursts are billions of light years away from earth. The problem is the energy released is so massive that the distance is the reason this planet can exist. We detect gamma ray burst that are moving through the solar system, not billions of light years away. Is this correct or did I get something wrong?
@Daddyo930 We use extremely sensitive detectors to detect gamma ray bursts. Did you know that after you take a shower, a blood test can detect chemicals in the water you showered in? We can measure voltages down to microvolts. If you were exposed to the chemicals at full strength or a high voltage you would die. Just because our modern detectors can detect something doesn't mean that there is enough to be a health problem.
@knowledgemonger, I don't take showers. Do you know how many b'gillions of little creatures and scary minerals and compounds are in water? We're all gonna die!!!
@LunarTuner Yes, you absorb dangerous chemicals when you shower. If you hold the leads of a volt meter with your fingers, you will see some voltage. Don't try this at home folks, voltages are dangerous. Just last week some water fell from the sky. I stayed inside so I would not drown. Worst of all I have detected adaptive radiation happening in a public park near here. The authorities have been notified.
@knowledgemonger March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond. We detect over 50 gamma ray bursts every day. There's more we can't
@Daddyo930 You said that you trusted numbers. You have not been able to come up with any numbers that suggest that the Apollo crews took more than just an increased cancer risk. Now you are abandoning your trust of numbers. Somehow you don't seen to understand that the fact that a burster is so far away means that you have to divide the power by the square of many billions. In other words, it falls to the point where a specially designed instrument is needed to detect it.
Don't forget the per Kg. Also you will notice that Daddy0930 would include the arctan of his shoe size in the calculations if needed to make it so that Apollo could not be for real. It has become obvious that this is not merely a case of someone who does not understand. I think, the best we can hope to do here is to prevent him from convincing someone else who also does not understand radiation.
What people need to understand is that most Apollo pictures, video and film are copies of copies of copies. Nasa keeps the original negatives protected, so most of what we see are copies of copies. During the process of making copies, you sometimes get scratches, lines, and hairs, that will turn up. One picture or film will be cleaner, but you may see another copy of the same picture or film and it'll be scratchy and dirty. Hoax dorks take this as some form of conspiracy, but it's not.
Haha! Kicked those conspiracy theorist's asses with this video. At the least you cleaned up a majority of what skeptical idiots that were left. Though, to be honest, most people on YouTube are idiots and are not capable of providing enough evidence to successfully call themselves REAL conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry, but that "new" footage could have easily been manipulated by any kind of composition or effects rendering software. Not defending the hoax, just saying. That process would be incredibly simple to perform in After Effects, any kind of NLE, or Magic Bullet.
@Dylanlip, yep, and I'm just saying that you're welcome to search the globe for any copy of the 1974 movie, "On the Shoulders of Giants" where this footage can be found and see if you find these lines. They weren't there when this was seen live on TV. "Could" does not mean "is".
@Essop101 hahahah how about yes and fuck you....and your voice is still annoying, your poor friends and loved ones gota listen to that shit all the time.. for fucks sake mate
@Essop101, you're not too smart are you. You do realize you come to my video post as a guest, right? You're entitled to your opinion about my voice (although I get many more compliments). And you know what? I'm also entitled to blocking you. You see, this is MY site!
Either you never had a mother or you didn't listen to her when she told you not to go to people's places and insult them. Or maybe your mother is just as tactless and stupid. I don't know. All I know is...
When Apollo went to the moon, they set up some cornercubes that are still being used nearly every day to measure the distance to the moon. There is no doubt that they are there and they are one bit of proof that the "we never went to the moon" crowd can't explain away.
Exactly .... DVD retouched apollo mission !!! Thats what you have, the Mythbusters had an old vhf or beta version that the discovery channel had wish as not been manipulate yet .
@leblancguillaume, No, actually this is very much UNretouched as is shown. There is all kinds of crap on the DVD copy too. Of course, you can claim what you'd like. The truth is, the film "On the Shoulders of Giants" has been public since 1975 and no "lines" were ever seen until the Mythbusters copy (which was likely downloaded and not off of vhs, beta or any other tape version). Back up your "retouch" claim with some investigative data and come back.
"...download a high quality film rip of the 1972/1973 NASA documentary that this clip came from. Google 'Jsc-603 Apollo17 On The Shoulders Of Giants wmv', click on the first link, then click on the first search result, and download the 1.7 GB wmv file.
It's a direct rip from the original film, together with all the scratches, marks and lines you'd expect to see on film. You'll find that clip at 10:50, but again, no so-called wires"
@MTMind2 Well I did and watch it and it was a digital version. You don't seem to understand I want to see a NONE digital version your version did not have scratches. And scratches on a film doesn't look like the wires we are talking about. And oh about the fact that Mythbusters had a downloaded version any proof ??
@leblancguillaume - With all due respect, how can you get a version online that is not digital? That is a high definition digital rip DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL 1973 FILM, with all the scratches and marks and countdown sequence etc of that ORIGINAL film, hence it's impossible to get any closer to the original film on a computer. If you want a non digital version then you have to buy a copy of the original documentary on film and play it through a projector. Talk about moving the goal posts :)
@leblancguillaume - And just to add, I've double checked that wmv file and it's resolution is 1920x1080, i.e. it's a 1080p rip, yes 1080p! Therefore you will not be able to find a better version of that clip anywhere else, not even on DVD, which has a lower resolution, or VHS which is even lower! Even if it were on Blu-ray (@1080p) it wouldn't look any better unless it was digitally enhanced to remove all marks and scratches, but that would be missing the point would it not?
@leblancguillaume - And why do you expect the scratches some claim are wires? The point is that the original film does not have the artifacts that some claim are wires. Clips like that are copied over and over again throughout the years, and during that time re transferred across mediums, i.e from film to VHS, and then from VHS to video, and therefore over time more and more artifacts are introduced and the overall quality falls. Therefore my video is as close to the original as you can get :)
Compress the videos and highlight the effects that they tried to hide. They were definitely using wires, all that bullshit is fake. Only an idiot would believe this stupid bullshit...
@GUARDIANtrooper - Eh? Compression adds distortion and artifacts, it doesn't reveal details. As stated in this topic, the original NASA documentary that this clip is taken from (released in 1972, almost 40 years ago!), has no so-called wires. And one wire could not achieve all we see, as I've shown here;
/watch?v=eH-8suPW5pw
The easiest way to prove it was faked is to, like Mythbusters, rig up someone and recreate the apollo footage (including falling over), and yet no-one has achieved this!
@MTMind2 Yes it does... I've done a lot of experiments and it conclusive. These fuckers faked the whole thing... It's like putting red dye in a solution to highlight hidden particles. It's like pouring paint over that invisible man. Changing the colors, black and white, reversing the polarities to the negative, video compression, widescreen, fullscreen etc.. You would be surprise what you will find if you experiment for yourself with a good program and new age technology vs their old...
@GUARDIANtrooper - We can take photos of any scene, compress them, and artifacts will appear that do not belong there. If you're so confident of your 'experiments', then upload them via imageshack and give us a link to your results. Better still, do so with Apollo photos and show the world the results of your 'analysis'. And again, why has no-one been able to DEMONSTRATE how the moon landings were so-called faked? We see magician's secrets revealed all the time, so apollo footage should be easy.
@MTMind2 I've done that, I've seen not ONE anomaly that remotely suggests a wire, only hidden particle that I've tried to hide in my experiments. It pops up like a sore thumb. I'm not posting any videos that are debatable. You people will only say I edited it and it would all be for nothing. I need hard concrete evidence of a hoax before I post and I'm working on it, believe me. This debate abroad proves that it was FAKE, if not, why debate it. I'm on offense, you and your likes defend it...
@GUARDIANtrooper - Ah yes, the classic "them and us" nonsense. If you're going to argue, argue on the evidence alone, not on the basis of personalities, types or stereotypes. Until you can produce your evidence, then your evidence is worthless. There are debates on YT claiming there are alien bases on the moon and Apollo ended after being warned to stay away by those aliens. By your logic, that must be true because it's being debated. I've seen all the claims of a fake, and none of them hold up.
@MTMind2 I don't debate on issues that doesn't arouse my belief whatsoever. In the minds of most individuals, aliens doesn't exist, because we can't prize witness to it. I'm not excluded from that equation, therefore I will never debate it or it's likes. If you believe that the moon landing was real, why waste your time with bozos that doesn't, they will never turn just because..., right? You are here, because you need a better reason other than your own to conclude this hoax. Prove me wrong...
@GUARDIANtrooper - Again you make assumptions. I don't see those who believe the landings were fake as 'bozos', neither do I see those who believe in alien bases/abductions, ghosts, the paranormal, religions etc, as bozos either, just people with different beliefs. I debate because I enjoy it (don't you?), not because I assume my beliefs MUST be right and others MUST be wrong. So as I said before, argue on the evidence, since it is possible (and preferable) to disagree without it being personal.
@MTMind2 "Bozo," is in reference to your adversary as a joke versus your claims. You both could believe in ghosts, but not in that particular house way or location. I was just saying, I don't believe in aliens so I won't touch it, because I'm not interested. But on the other hand, I do believe in the spirit world, (GOD, JESUS) but some people take it too far to create non-believers, so I don't touch it on here, because I do believe. The more we all debate this issue, the more it becomes FAKE...
@GUARDIANtrooper - Which is that's exactly what I DON'T assume. I see no-one as bozos based upon their beliefs, only by their behaviour (i.e. being immature, rude, disrespectful etc)! Hence I attack the CLAIMS not the person, but if I consider the claims to be ridiculous, even stupid, that doesn't automatically mean the person stating them is stupid too. As for debating issues, whether God exists or not is one of the oldest debates around and still goes on today, that doesn't make it more FAKE.
@MTMind2 Some people have a bad misconception of what is stupid and what they don't understand to be stupid... The FAKE thingy was in reference to the moon landing, not GOD, that issue I stated is closed for debating... If you are offended by my assessment towards people clowning about the moon landings, what are you debating about? You can't change anyone without proof or concrete evidence, so what achievements are you fixing to receive? People minds are made up on both sides, can you fix that?
@GUARDIANtrooper - I know you were referring to the moon landings and not God, I was making the point that it applies to all subjects, Apollo is not some special case, therefore the idea that debating a controversy somehow makes it true is just nonsense. And offended? Which part of "I debate because I enjoy it" did you not understand? ;-) I'm not here to change your mind, I'm here to debate, which is the purpose of having a comments section is it not? Or do you have another reason to be here?
@MTMind2 Now I was making a point. I was saying, if you continue to debate about an issue, no one will believe it, because both sides will have a good argument and people who are sure of the side they choose my change it to, "I'm not sure." You get enough people with that, it will be ruled out as unresolved and in most cases FAKE or a HOAX. This is why government trolls are fighting so hard, because the opposition is seemingly more truthful and logical, because the government/NASA is corrupted.
One of my favorites is where the conspiracy nuts will show the video where the one astronaut is asking the other if he can throw his rock hammer. The other one gives permission, saying "don't hit the lem" and the transmitter circuit bounces (try releasing the talk button on an old analog walkie talkie, you'll hear a click from the current in the circuit "bouncing") which they interpretted as a "p" They think he's saying "don't hit the lamp" meaning the movie studio lamp. What bullshit.
luccaskunk 3 months ago
@luccaskunk And then there's the one where they say the flag was waving in the wind... Seriously? They've obviously never seen the footage if they think that's the case.
luccaskunk 3 months ago
@luccaskunk They want stars to show up in pictures where exposure is set for sunlit objects. They see shadows falling on a curved surface and imagine multiple lights could do that. They see dust kicked up by the tires of the rover and imagine that sand looks the same. They see antennas sticking off at angles and imagine wires. They have a space craft in geostationary low earth orbit. They see the LEM take off and expect sparks and smoke like a Buck Rogers movie. The list is very long.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Yeah, i know all of those, but those aren't my favorites. Then there's the mountains, they see the same extremely distant mountain chain in the background at two different locations and expect the vista to change drastically when ironically there's enough parallax between the two vistas to get a 3d image of the mountains and they call it a 2D backdrop painting.
luccaskunk 3 months ago
@luccaskunk Some people have never ridden in a car on a long trip near some mountains. Basically everyone has been outdoors on a sunny day. This makes the "shadows at angles" my favorite bit of bad logic by the other side. Just looking around themselves, on a sunny day, they could see the same thing happen. It shows a lack of more than mere knowledge. There is a lack of curiosity that runs so deep that they don't even look and notice the obvious.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger I've actually replicated the shadows thing at a dry lake bed near the Sierra Madre, not far from Edwards Airforce Base. It was, as far as you could see, a completely flat plane of dry lake bed. However, shadows in the distance appeared to be at a different angle than shadows closer to the camera, despite the only light source being the sun at 4pm in the summer.
luccaskunk 3 months ago
@luccaskunk that is to say perspective is wonderful at playing tricks on our eyes
luccaskunk 3 months ago
@luccaskunk So long as there are no trees or light poles to give away the true vertical, the effect is not hard to have happen. The objects need to be far enough away that the distance between your eyes is very small or you have to close one eye or take a picture. A dray lake bed will work very well. So will grasses on a surface. In both cases the texture subtle and varies constantly. There is nothing to let you see the contour of the ground.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
The constant back-and-forth arguments are (at least, in my opinion) totally pointless. The fact is that many people tend to believe what they want to believe, and no amount of logic or evidence to the contrary will persuade them into changing their opinions on what they see as the Pure Undeniable Truth.
Conspiracy theorists are a prime example of this. A conspiracy theorist, to me, is simply another form of fanatic...I'd go deeper into this, but it seems that I have just about run out of space
graywolf83 3 months ago
@graywolf83, I appreciate your point. Please don't misunderstand--I argue "band-and-forth" not to persuade the person I'm arguing with. I'm well-aware of the fanatical commitment of my opponent. I'm also very conscious that an entire generation did not experience Apollo, often has a weak grasp of science and needs to see a logical and rational defense of real things. I consider that demonstration for on-lookers to be a valuable endeavor.
LunarTuner 3 months ago 2
@LunarTuner At least in one case, your pointing out that what the other person has been saying appears to have been part of why they went away and stopped saying it (at least for a while) This suggests that perhaps you have effected the absolute certainty of the person making the bogus claims. It didn't stick but at least there was a pause in the nonsense.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
bullshitbusters my ass. he used a remastered copy to prove it wrong. DVD!!!! fail...
kernzyp 4 months ago
@kernzyp, I used a DVD of the film, "Apollo 17: On the Shoulders of Giants". You're welcome to look high & low for another copy of this film from 1974 with these lines on it. Why the Canadian company that distributed the DVD would remaster it is beyond me, especially since these lines don't appear on any other copies of this footage. Check this: watch?v=domtyECeabA
What's your explanation for seeing these "wires" above, below and all over NASA films? Did they rig wires to grains of sand too?
LunarTuner 4 months ago
@LunarTuner grains of sand do not need help. people do. they fall over like drunk children, then act like a turtle on their back until they get yanked up. visible wires or not. countless examples out there.
watch?v=ymlwb76ZeiI
tell me how this dude gets up without using his arms or legs??
PEACE!!
kernzyp 4 months ago
@kernzyp I've seen that video. Anyone who has experience walking on ice will know exactly how he regained his footing. On the moon, you can do it far more easily because of 1/6th G. It is just a question of looking what he does with his legs.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger thats a poor answer. he gets lifted. he can't get up. end of. then he gets lifted. he doesn't hold the other astronaught, the other dude does not touch him. so, he cannot get up using his arms or legs, then he gets up on ONE LEG without assistance. watch closer. "can't get up using all his limbs, then gets up using one leg." impossible odds. would a one leg horse do better than a four legged one? at anything??
PEACE!!
kernzyp 4 months ago
@kernzyp I have seen the video. What you describe is not what happened. You are suggesting that something can't be done in 1/6th G that I have personally done in one full G. Anyone who has walked on ice will understand what they are seeing. I suggest that if you are a fit person, you give it a try. You will see. The human leg can produce a force far greater than your weight.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger i have ice skated, walked on ice and i was a bodybuilder. i know this stuff. if i was to try and propel myself with one foot which is not on it's sole (look close, it's on the laces part of boot), i would fail.
laces out!!!!
kernzyp 4 months ago
@kernzyp, imagine how hard it would be if you weighed only 60 lbs., but had the strength of a military man; you were already somewhat inclined because of a hill and you had your hand on someone else's shoulder. A little push with your hand and a kick with your leg--VERY PLAUSIBLE!
LunarTuner 4 months ago
@kernzyp I could do it. I think it may be a matter of where on your body the C of G lands and how much power you can make with the muscles that straighten the leg. I never had a lot of upper body strength but could ride a bike at 45 MPH on the level without trouble. I also could go from sitting to standing on one leg. I'll be you built up your upper body by lifting weights. This would give you a high C of G.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@kernzyp
1. Both a-nauts are on a hill side (tilt of camera on LRV obscures this). This reduces the angle to get up.
2. A-nauts effectively weigh 60 lbs. on the moon & every a-naut can do 50 pushups on earth weighing 180 lbs.
3. A-naut on left kicks left leg upward, creating momentum
4. A-naut on left has his left arm on right shoulder of a-naut on right--clearly seen at the end of the video.
5. No wires are visible.
It's on the moon. That should explain it.
LunarTuner 4 months ago
@kernzyp You want scientific conclusive evidence? Look up Armalcolite.. then look up all the scientific studies on it.. all this crap about interpreting flashes as wires is weak evidence that is nothing conclusive vs the scientific evidence. If you can refute any of the studies, you will have caught my interest.
death0metal 3 months ago
LMAO !!! thanks for posting this !!
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
Anyone want to talk about the "OH MY GOD" particle discovered in 1991? Galactic cosmic ray detectors measured a 50 joule burst. Does anyone know how many rads 50 joules is? 5,000,000,000 rads. We detect gamma burst coming at us from all directions in space all the time. Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules. Does anyone know how many rads 5 joules is?500,000,000 rads. One second exposure from anything like that and you die quickly. End of story. Manned mission to the moon: BUSTED! FAKE!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 WOW!!!! Hand that guy a Nobel Prize! :-o
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
Thank god we have youtard idiots to make idiots of themselves. We might have listened to an actual Rad worker who actually works for a living ;)
1 Rad = 0.01 joules dumbass. Found that out from 30 sec of googling. So 5 joules is 500 rad. So you' were only off by, say, a million ;)
Dont cut and paste big words you dont understand. You'll just look stupid.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse 5 joules is 500 rad. Wrong 5 joules = 500,000,000 rads. Try googling joules to rad converter. I'm studying astrophysics now and what I see on the moon threads is a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about. Can you tell me what the "OH MY GOD" particle is? google it and tell me how many joules they detected in a galactic cosmic ray in 1991.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, sorry to interrupt your conversation with STM, but you're saying that you've begun to study astrophysics and already you're making an assertion that no astrophysicist PhD. in the world is making (that Apollo astronauts would have died immediately)? Umm...I think I'd double-check your data. Just sayin'.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
The 5 = 500,000,000 was inexcusable newb stupidity. A hoax moron with a cut and paste machine is a dangerous thing ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Then please educate me. How many rads is 5 joules?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
5 joules = 500 rads. We're raking you over the coals for your preposterous 500,000,000 rad statement. If you got THAT out of a rad converter then you screwed up royally.
I taught both physics and astronomy, and know that "galactic cosmic ray" is a NEWB SCI FI term. Radiation is alpha, beta, xray etc. You might be reading articles about astrophysics that have been dumbed down for the public, not knowing that they were dumbed down.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Use the following calculator to convert between joules/gram and rads. If you need to convert joules / gram to other units, please try our universal Radiation - Absorbed Dose Unit Converter. When you convert 5 joules / gram to rads, you get 500,000. If you have a problem with that conversion you should take it up with unitconversion
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You keep leaving out the mass of the absorbed dose.
krisdevalle 5 months ago
@krisdevalle Is that all you have left? Pitiful. Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. Google it. 5 joules/kilogram = 500 rads. Death. 50 joules/gram =5,000,000 rads. Death. The gamma ray burst we are talking about here are measured in joules/gram not kilogram. Either method of measurement equals death anyway so what are you talking about. Can anyone survive 500 rad exposure over 3 days?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Have your calculations reviewed by someone else, say put it up on physicsforum or the like, then you might have something.
People study this for 4 years, and you think a google calculator and some websites will do the trick? Not gonna fly.
krisdevalle 5 months ago
@krisdevalle Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. Who runs that website? Is that information peer reviewed? It's all based off Einstein's E=mc2 theory. You have to be able to convert mass to energy to make calculations. Can you accept that? 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads. How can someone have a website devoted to unit conversion and be wrong? Wouldn't some reputable organization step up and expose the frauds? Now your just running around in circles. Tell me how many rads in 5 joules/gram?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Get your work reviewed bro. I think you are afraid of someone who knows what they are talking about, telling you that you have made a lot of mistakes.
Once again - get it peer reviewed.
krisdevalle 5 months ago
@krisdevalle Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table, run by some webmaster is based off of Einsteins E=mc2 theory. Checkmate. In order to disprove that 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads, you would have to disprove Einstein's theory. Good luck.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, Dude, no one disputes that a gram of mass receiving 5 joules has received 500,000 RADs. But do you know an a-naut who weighs a gram? I weigh 85,000 grams. "Absorbed Dose Conversion Table" asks to enter a fraction: 5/85,000, which is .00005882. Convert that to RADs & it means I have received 5.882 RAD. If I were an a-naut in a spacecraft or in a multi-layered spacesuit, I'm easily receiving less than 5 RAD.
You found an online tool. A tool is only good if you know how to use it.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Wrong. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. 5 joules/gram really means every gram on your body will recieve 5 joules. Your intepretation of the conversion chart is wrong. Your just playing games.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, BRILLIANT QUOTE! It should be in Wikipedia! Oh...it already is. If you cut/paste, at least use something relevant!
YOU started by saying, "Most of the bursts average 5 to 10 joules." A joule is just a unit of energy. The expression "joule/gram" is an ABSORBED DOSE. DIVIDE the unit of energy by its mass--not MULTIPLY! (thus the / ). 5 joules divided by the tissue mass of an avg. man (85kg) = .0005882. Converted to RADs, that's 5.882 RAD.
Let me recommend college, not Wikipedia.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Wrong. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. That means exposure of one gram on your 85kg body of flesh to 1 joule/gram of energy and you die. Weight and mass of the target is irrelevent.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, "Weight and mass of the target is irrelevant." :D You're a trip! You're seriously saying that finding an absorbed dose (joule/gram or RAD) has nothing to do with the mass of what absorbs it? That's like saying 80 mph has nothing to do with time!
Do you have kids? I hope not. SAD! You find a Wikipedia article, misread it & publicly declare a discovery that turns back centuries of scientific study of energy. I beg you to call a physics PhD and have a chat. Embarrassing!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I see that you are posting your same mistakes all over the place on youtube. You don't understand the subject and made a very obvious blunder in this claim that in this case, I won't bother to correct. The correction can be found elsewhere on youtube. I think that you are so determined to disprove the Apollo landings that you simply won't allow the facts to get in your way. You have piled error upon error and in spite of people correcting you you repeat the errors.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger What specific mistakes are you talking about? E=mc2. That equation lets you convert mass into energy. Is that incorrect? If E=mc2 is true then the Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table is correct because it is based on E=mc2. Tell me how I just fucked up now.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 In another video I commented on some of the mistakes you are making. Just because you know E=MC^2 is a fact doesn't mean that you have the slightest clue about what that equation means to the subject at hand or how to apply it. You can convert mass to energy and back and forth to your hearts desire but that has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a rad. We can save a lot of time if you just use this simple rule:
If you think you have disproved Apollo you are wrong.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Fine. Just answer this question. Can astronauts fly through a solar flare? November 14, 1969 apollo takes off for the moon. So did a solar flare. Total mission time for apollo 12, 89 hours. Total exposure time to M6 and X4 class solar flares, 23 hours. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 96. Column 5, page 96 represents duration in hours. Total duration of solar flares for mission, 23 hours.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You don't understand the subject well enough to see that you haven't even asked the question correctly. The Apollo crew took a slight increase in cancer risk and nothing more.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Can an astronaut in 1969 fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares? Is that what your asking me to believe? Do you believe that aluminum and plastic can shield you against M6 and X4 class solar flares? Will you even acknowledge that the astronauts took off when a solar flare erupted?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I am pointing out that yu don't know enough about the subject to even really understand the question you are asking. This is why I suggested in the other video that you go look up some information about what a solar flare is before you continue the discussion.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 10^25 joules of energy[1] (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). Is this wrong because it's from Wikipedia. What source should I use when looking up solar flares?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You made the right start. Now look up how far away the sun is. Basically you have fallen into the trap of "there are lions in Africa, even though that is a different place, the lion might eat me." The sun is 93 million miles away. Mostly it sends light in our direction. It also sends charged particles as the solar wind. Neither light nor the charged particles (by time they get here) are strong enough to go through a sheet of aluminum foil.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Did you know that an X7 solar flare 5 days ago (almost twice as powerful as the X4 you keep going on about) has come and gone with negligible effects here on earth? The CME missed us, and even if we had a glancing blow, the effects would have been minor. Now if it had been earth-directed, that would have been a different story. And an increase in the intensity of aurora usually marks such events reaching earth's magnetic field. Was an increase noted at any time during Apollo 12?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 87. Column 7: Heliocentric position of the LDE flare, the second line giving the heliographic longitude of the LDE flare. According to this data, it appears that apollo 12 flew right through an X4 class solar flare. I would say that's impossible because they would have died from radiation exposure very quickly.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Nope, you're assuming Apollo 12 was in the direct path just as you assumed ALL solar flares are a danger to astronauts. I asked for evidence of an X4 flare that was earth-directed, not simplistic assumptions. So try again. Specify the actually flare involved with a link to evidence that it resulted in a CME producing high-speed particles that bombarded the earth, and hence the astronauts. You're the one making the claim, so you provide the evidence.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are not qualified to say whether anyone would have died from any level of exposure. You have made such an endless stream of errors on the subject that really you should stop posting and embarrassing your self. There are lots of satellites up in orbit outside the Van Allen belt that have been up there while a great many solar flares have come and gone. If these solar flares were the sort of death ray you suggest how are they still working?
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger I am studying astrophysics and I think I can confidently say that if you are exposed to 60 to the 25th power joules of energy, your gonna die real quick. The physics of nuclides indicates that they don't remain localized at the site of exposure. The radioactive element continues to find healthy cells and destroy them eventually corrupting the organs of the subject and leading to death. Amputation of the affected limb seems to be the only way to stop exposure from spreading.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You have made error after error after error in conversions. Nobody should take your numbers seriously. If you are studying astrophysics in a school, expect to flunk out badly.
You can't do conversions and you are completely ignoring the facts. You also seem to hold some witchcraft views about how radiation does its damage. You are embarrassing yoruself in public.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger According to the heliocentric and heliographic longitude data provided in Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971, apollo 12 flew through M3 and X5 class solar flares for 12+ hours. NASA astrophysics data system published this report. Did they get the heliocentric and heliogaphic longitude of the solar flares wrong?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Just for good measure you make sure to post the same proof that you don't know what you are talking about in more than one place. Over in the other video, your claim about the radiation from the flare has already been debunked by someone else. He appears to have bothered to post the real numbers rather that just point out that you have it absolutely and totally wrong. You don't even know enough about the subject to see that your claims have been disproved.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger, Whether his Harvard chart's data is correct or not (as if anyone has a solar observatory & has taken 60 yrs of daily solar data!), Irrelevant! The solar flare classes during A 12 wouldn't have been lethal even if they were stronger & the a-nauts were on the lunar surface. Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It recounts a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated over 100 MeV. Physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta calls it non-lethal.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner - Thanks for that, an excellent find and a key point, because no matter how much we 'armchair experts' may think we know and use our limited knowledge to argue the point here on youtube, what we really need to do is to listen to the experts in the field, ie. what the physicists say. :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger So why didn't you bother posting the "numbers" here? Let me ask you a question. Has the american government ever lied to it's people in the past? Yes. Some examples would be the Tuskege experiment, Watergate, Iran-Contra just to name a few. I see no good reason to believe an organization that takes in NAZI scientist instead of putting them on trial for war crimes. I believe numbers because they don't lie. People will lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Numbers won't.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, is there a government on earth that hasn't used lying or deceit within its structure? Does someone's lie in a gov't mean everyone in the gov't lies? Does it mean the government lies in every respect, all the time?
Rather than fomenting paranoia & conspiracy behind everything you don't understand, why don't CTs spend time getting an education in objective disciplines like math & science so they can make independent investigations & judgements instead of tickling every fear they have?
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner That's why I believe in the numbers and not some jackass who gets paid to lie. You can't pay numbers to lie. You can manipulate them but your gonna get busted sooner or later and the truth will come out. That catalogue was very hard to find on the internet. It's not like NASA is flaunting this information in everyone's face. As a matter of fact, they even admit they can't go back to the moon now. Your totally busted. People will do almost anything for money.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, your numbers aren't wrong--your analysis of them is wrong! I quoted a Physics PhD (physics don't lie either) whose analysis of the flares shows that they would not kill anyone. You ignored that. I assume you can find another physics PhD who can analyze your numbers to show that they WOULD kills someone? Go for it! I have no reason to believe YOUR analysis (nothing personal).
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner If you agree that people will say anything for money then you would understand what I am about to say now. Everyone knows the amount of energy involved in an X5 class solar flare. Those numbers don't lie. We know about the levels of radiation exposure before death. Those numbers don't lie. Anyone who tries to say that you can fly through an X5 class solar flare is an intellectual prostitute. People lie, numbers don't.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "We know about the levels of radiation exposure before death." Really? Did you get that info from an astrophysicist? I did! I quoted Dr. Francis Cucinotta saying that 100 MeV (greater than what your x5 would create) An X7 would expose an a-naut to 50 Rem. That isn't enough to cause radiation sickness. "But it would not at been fatal." A PHYSICISTS WORDS!
Do you dispute him? If so, quote another physicist! Because as you say, "people lie." So, why should we listen to you?
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner So fine. Here are my numbers on energy released in an X5 class solar flare. The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time. Thats from NASA's "What is a solar flare". 10^27 ergs/second = 1.0 × 10^20 joules/second = Ten to the twentieth is a huge number so I'll just use 100000 joules = even at 100,000/kilogram it works out to 10,000,000 rads. That's what kind of energy is in an X5 class solar flare. NASA says it.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, you left out on more "huge number": 94.4 million miles. Fortunately, Apollo did not send men to Mercury.
So, why do you believe these NASA figures you just quoted? Surely they have lied, right?
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner NASA is not the only one doing studies of solar flares. Many universities have studied solar flares and their numbers are the same. Would you like some references to universities that do studies on solar flares and look at the numbers they are reporting? NASA lied about sending men to the moon. They have not lied about the dangers of radiation in space. Their motto is As Low As Reasonably achievable. The acknowledment of the truth about radiation is admission of the moon mission lie
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, Dr. Cucinotta says an x7 is not dangerous enough to kill a man on the moon. Dr. Cucinotta works for NASA. You say, NASA has "not lied about the dangers of radiation in space." Therefore, you believe Dr. Cucinotta...
...or perhaps all these physicists are saying the same thing, but you hear only what you want to.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner I don't trust people. I trust numbers. Solar flares contain radioactive elements found on the periodic table. Some of the half lives are in decades. Your trying to tell me that by the time a solar flare reaches here in about a day or so that the radioactivity of that element has been reduced to the point that it is harmless? Really? I hope you don't expect me to believe that. Radioactive elements with half lives over 2 days makes the manned mission to the moon impossible. BUSTED!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, How do you get your numbers without people, Einstein?
And you expect me to believe that the energy of solar radiation is the same here as it is at the sun?
Half lives? OMGosh. :D Lord, help this man. :D :D :D
Thank you. Truly, thank you. You are making my video post more entertaining by the minute!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Dr. Cucinotta never talked about radioactive decay either. Every solar flare has radioactive elements in it. There is no way all of the radioactive elements would have decayed to the point of being harmless in the day or two it take for solar flares to reach earth. Some are as fast as 38 minutes. That's why you guys run away from radiation. There is no explaining the half life degredation to zero in two days. 93 million miles in two days in not enough to degrade all the radiation.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 The American government lies all the time. The Apollo space craft went to the moon. The two are both true facts. One does not cancel the other because we can check each and prove that each is true. I don't say that Apollo went to the moon just because the government of the US said it did. Lots of people all round the world have independent proof.
You believe numbers but you sure as heck don't know what to do with them. You have made lots of errors on conversions etc.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Ok. Fine. Is it true that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I have yet to see a case of Mendelevium being seen in solar flares. For that matter, there is a very rapid fall off in the amounts with atomic number. For that matter, I also don't think it has been seen in a cosmic ray. The Sun being a modest sized second generation one does not do much in the way of making things beyond helium. Other stars do better at it.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger You should check NASA before making statements like that. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Is NASA wrong? I told you that all the elements, including the radioactive ones, are in our sun, solar flares and galactic cosmic rays. Is this true or not?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 You just changed the question. You asked: "Is it true that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares?" Now you want to reduce it to only the natural elements. The answer I gave was correct. You really need to go study up on these subjects before you comment any further. You are making more errors.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Over in the other video I responded to you at greater length
Others: Google on mendelevium and look back through Daddyo930's posts to see his blunder on this subject. He is also making and argument like "an ocean full of water can drown you, there is a light rain outside so you can't go out there or else you will drown" He simply can't understand the numbers and units of measure involved in talking about radiation so he gets things horridly wrong all the time.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger I will admit to you now that I have been wrong in other post. I wrongly posted the number of ergs per second as 27. It was actually 10 with 27 zeros. My fault. That would be 10000000000...do you really want me to count out the rest of the zero's in ergs per second? I thought 27 ergs per second was fatal. My mistake. We are actually talking about a number significantly larger than 27 ergs per second.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You can use scientific notation or engineering / computer notation for numbers that are far from 1, 2 and 3. It will work just fine. You don't understand the numbers. You are the classic case of someone who knows how to multiply but not when. Your errors have not been simple matters of getting the numbers wrong. It is that you don't understand the science. You have no grasp of what things like the rad unit of measure means.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger I do understand unit conversion. In order to make calculations in astrophysics, you sometimes have to convert a unit of matter to energy. This method is supported by Einstein's E=mc2 theory. How can you tell me that I don't understand the science when I have been copying and pasting from NASA, Science Journal, Physics Journal and other peer reviewed articles? I went out, researched the info and copy and pasted what I thought was relevent.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, AHHH! THIS is the matter!
"copy & paste" ≠ understanding.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Is copy and pasting from NASA, Science Journal, Physics Journal and other peer reviewed papers prohibited? Are they not to be trusted as reputable sources of correct information? Whom would you like me to copy and paste from that would satisfy you? What sources would you like me to copy and paste from?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, The problem is not your sources. The problem is that you don't understand what you're posting or you post it out of context.
If you believe NASA is correctly posting horrifyingly lethal space radiation data, but on the other hand they falsely Apollo took men to the moon, why not confront THEM with their inconsistency? Or, if you believe they are sometimes right & sometimes wrong, why do you assume their solar data is the correct thing? Do you compare it to your own measurements?
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner The problem with your assertion is that you assume that only I have access to the data. Anyone with a little brains can download the free FV program from NASA. That program lets you gain access to their satellites that measure radiation in space, solar flares and galactic cosmic rays. The data is what it is. Numbers don't lie, people do. You could try and manipulate the data, but someone will figure it out and bust you. Most people can't figure out what they're looking at anyway.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, So, you trust the data NASA gives you, but you don't trust a NASA physicist who tells you that the data does not mean Apollo astronauts would have died. Seems like you should contact these scientists and confront them! Why aren't you doing that? You could make some cash! Get a lawyer! A huge lawsuit! Get a book deal! Don't you realize that you may have your hands on the most valuable secret in history? Come on! Man up, Dude!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Not even tempted in the least. When I was on tour in Japan with a band, I could have been a millionair several times over by now. Have you heard my music? I have had several opportunities to get a record deal. I turned them all down. My music is free. According to my calculations, the end of this reality draws nigh. Sooner than you think, the question of whether or not we are alone in the universe will be answered. Do you think we are alone in the universe or galaxy?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You have been copying and pasting but not understanding the things you copy and paste. You don't understand the subject. You apply E=MC^2 in the case of rads in a way that simply shows you don't understand. You copy and paste a statement in direct contradiction to your own statement and can't see your own error after it has been pointed out repeatedly and you have just finished pasting something that shows you are wrong.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Your just stumbling around now. Point out specific examples. We'll take them one at a time.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 There is no stumble on my part. I am almost starting to feel sorry for you.
You tried to apply the E=MC^2 in the case of the rads conversion.
You said that all the elements in the periodic table are in a solar flare and then pasted a section that contradicted that from some science source.
Others have shown you the math showing that the solar flare you are talking about wasn't a health risk by time it got here.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] Additionally, in systems which have no momentum (or are viewed in their center of momentum frame), then the equation E = mc2 also continues to be correct. Mass–energy equivalence in either of these conditions means that mass conservation becomes a restatement, or requirement, of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Your wrong.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Lets try again. From NASA Space Environment: Solar flares emit radiation across virtually the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves at the long wavelength end, through optical emission to x-rays and gamma rays at the short wavelength end. This radiation can corrode equipment, overload cameras or MICAS, and expose humans to dangerous levels of rads. The more harmful radioactive elements on the periodic table can be found in solar flares. That good enough?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, there is nothing new or suspicious in that statement.
There is also nothing in the statement about elements in the periodic table & nothing about what exposure to solar radiation is DEADLY.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Fine. From NASA's Cosmicicopia: Elements usually mean the elements of the periodic table, and the Sun contains all of the naturally occuring elements, although some are very, very rare. From NASA: X-class flares are by far the largest explosions in the solar system and are awesome to watch such flares and associated CMEs can create long lasting radiation storms that can harm satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies and power grids. Anything wrong?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, Using quote marks would be helpful. That's standard.
To me, the "elements" issue means nothing. To me the question is whether deep spaceflight is deadly to humans.
No problem, but these words still don't establish that every X-class flare or CME is necessarily directed at earth or deadly. In fact, it goes on to say, "If they're directed at Earth..." implying they all are NOT. And, "With advance warning many satellites and spacecraft can be protected from the worst effects." DING!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You did a good start but you made some very serious errors still. There is for all practical purposes no gamma radiation from the sun. The electromagnetic waves shorter than UV are called X-ray if they are from electrons and gamma if they are from nuclei. There really is no distinction between gamma and Xray other than the source.
"The more harmful" etc is just flat wrong.
The "dangerous levels of rads" is also incorrect in that it is vague and not qualified.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger So NASA is wrong when they say that solar flares emmit gamma rays? If you really want to talk about gamma rays, then galactic cosmic rays have gamma radiation in abundance. A typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime. These rays criscross the solar system in such a way as to seem a uniform block were it viewed in 3D. Galactic cosmic rays never stop and come from every direction in space. Your BUSTED!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, no one has ever disputed the fact that solar energy and gamma rays can be dangerous and even deadly. Your failure is that you have never--at any point--shown that they are ALWAYS deadly or they were SPECIFICALLY deadly during and directed at any single Apollo mission. You have not connected your last dot, because you can't!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 If NASA says that a solar flare has enough gamma rays to even be worth talking about then yes, they are wrong. It would surprise be to see them make that error but I can't rule it out.
Your "Tour BUSTED" comment is laughable. Nobody has been trying to tell you that there are no gamma rays in space. We have been just explaining things like the decrease as the square of distance and other things that makes the level that the Apollo crews were exposed to small.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger The biggest flares are known as "X-class flares" based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength. The smallest ones are A-class (near background levels), followed by B, C, M and X. Similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, each letter represents a 10-fold increase in energy output. So an X is ten times an M and 100 times a C. Within each letter class there is a finer scale from 1 to 9. Tell NASA flying through that would be ok.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are the one making the claim. Go look up the numbers for your self or go back through the comments and look for where someone has done the math for you. You will see that the amount of radiation that a person would get would not be enough to cause health problems. You have made the same mistake over and over. You simply won't look at the fairly simple math that shows that this idea you have is wrong. Even without the spacecraft to protect them it is not enough to kill.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger No. Wikipedia is the one making the claim. In the past, it was believed that the cosmic ray flux has remained fairly constant over time. Recent research has, however, produced evidence for 1.5 to 2-fold millennium-timescale changes in the cosmic ray flux in the past forty thousand years. The amount of radioactive particles in space has increased, not decreased. One more time. In 1969, apollo 12 was not capable of flying through solar flares. Even NASA won't say that.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are the one making the claim that there is enough radiation to be a health hazard. You haven't been able to come up with any numbers that support your claim. You have copied and pasted things that disagree with your claim. You are now trying to blame Wikipedia. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that you don't know enough about the subject to understand what the numbers mean and convert the units as needed.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It discusses a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated 100+ MeV. It quotes physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta:
"On the Moon, Cucinotta estimates, an astronaut protected by no more than a space suit would have absorbed about 50 rem of ionizing radiation. That's enough to cause radiation sickness. 'BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FATAL...'
So, if X7 wouldn't kill, an X4 during Apollo 12 wouldn't either.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner History has shown that people will do almost anything for money. They will lie, cheat, steal and murder for money. Therefore I believe in numbers, not people who can be corrupted. Numbers can be manipulated, but sooner or later you will get caught. The numbers involved in solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the solar winds make any mission to the moon impossible without either massive shields or electromagnetic shields which we didn't have in 1969. Stop quoting people, Numbers.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, you don't need to explain to me that conspiracy theorist are paranoid--I know this. As for the numbers, do you think you got the numbers without people?
True, people can manipulate #s. That's what you've done. That is, you don't understand the #s you have. Do you use a physics different than Dr. Cucinotta or any other physicist? You have no greater qualifications to show that radiation was lethal to Apollo. No physicists from anywhere disagrees with Cucinotta--just lame youtubers.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner What numbers did I get wrong? I have copied and pasted those numbers so I don't understand how I could have made an error. Galactic cosmic rays are 90 percent protons. Is that correct? If that's true then every galactic cosmic ray represents a solar proton event. Would that be correct if I were to make that assumption? Galactic cosmic rays come at us from every direction in space every second of every day. Solar flares happen about twice a week since 1969. How is this incorrect?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, how many times do I need to explain this? What you have incorrect is your interpretation! Your analysis is incorrect! Your assumption that these levels would have killed Apollo astronauts is incorrect!
Your conclusion that radiation can be dangerous is NOT wrong. Your conclusion that it always kills anyone in deep space IS wrong! READ!: BAD ≠ DEADLY
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner So you don't disagree that solar flares happen about twice a week? Good. Then do you agree that galactic cosmic rays happen every second of every day and that we don't have enough satellites in orbit to detect and measure them all? Or do you think galactic cosmic rays are rare events? The SWIFT satellite was able to detect 500 bursts in 5 years. That's only one satellite looking at a small section of sky.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, irrelivant...
The bottom line is if any events would have KILLED Apollo astronauts.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Lions stalk in Africa. Water falls from the sky nearly every day. Haven't drown or been killed by a lion today. The Apollo crew was never subject to anything that did any more than give them a slight increase in cancer risk. Cosmic rays are not life threatening. I don't know where you got they idea that they were but it is simply false. A burst is just an increase from way too small to matter up to too small to matter.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[1]). You have gamma ray bursts, galactic cosmic rays, solar flares and the solar winds to contend with. You have not convinced me that apollo could have survived all of that.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, more of the same....
"...Radiation is bad! It's scary! Oooo! Ahhh!..."
What wonderful science. You abandoned your numbers and quantifiable data for sheer emotionalism. Pathetic. (Boys and girls, let this be a lesson that physics should be left to people who understand physics.)
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Cmon! Just look at the map of gamma ray bursts that wikipedia has. JUST LOOK AT IT. That map says more than I could about how many gamma ray bursts are out there in space. So many that it looks like one big block. We would have to assume that the pattern extends out into space. There is no way you could navigate through that.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, more of the same...
"...it looks scary to me!" :-o
science.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 The mag of gamma ray bursters and their distances say something that you have not said not something you could not have said. You could very easily have said "gamma ray bursters are so far away that they don't matter to the health of a crew on a space craft". Notice that this correct statement fits very easily within the 500 character limit of youtube. Do you even understand the square law fall off?
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is radiated outward radially in three-dimensional space from a point source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. That argument would save you if the amount of energy wasn't so incredibly massive. This does not apply to GCR's and gamma rays bursts
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are somehow suggesting that dividing a huge number by an extremely massive number that is orders larger doesn't lead to a small answer. You really have no grasp of physics or math if that is what you believe. The sources of the bursts are extremely far away. When you divide by the square of the distance you get proof that they don't matter to the health issues. You seem to be unwilling to understand the things that show that you are wrong. Just do the math and see.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger I did say that the sources of gamma ray bursts are billions of light years away from earth. The problem is the energy released is so massive that the distance is the reason this planet can exist. We detect gamma ray burst that are moving through the solar system, not billions of light years away. Is this correct or did I get something wrong?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 We use extremely sensitive detectors to detect gamma ray bursts. Did you know that after you take a shower, a blood test can detect chemicals in the water you showered in? We can measure voltages down to microvolts. If you were exposed to the chemicals at full strength or a high voltage you would die. Just because our modern detectors can detect something doesn't mean that there is enough to be a health problem.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger, I don't take showers. Do you know how many b'gillions of little creatures and scary minerals and compounds are in water? We're all gonna die!!!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Yes, you absorb dangerous chemicals when you shower. If you hold the leads of a volt meter with your fingers, you will see some voltage. Don't try this at home folks, voltages are dangerous. Just last week some water fell from the sky. I stayed inside so I would not drown. Worst of all I have detected adaptive radiation happening in a public park near here. The authorities have been notified.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger
;)
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two Soviet spacecraft that were then drifting through the solar system were hit by a blast of gamma ray radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond. We detect over 50 gamma ray bursts every day. There's more we can't
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You said that you trusted numbers. You have not been able to come up with any numbers that suggest that the Apollo crews took more than just an increased cancer risk. Now you are abandoning your trust of numbers. Somehow you don't seen to understand that the fact that a burster is so far away means that you have to divide the power by the square of many billions. In other words, it falls to the point where a specially designed instrument is needed to detect it.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
I went straight to a physics text. It said 1 Rad = 0.01 Joule. That means 5 joules = 500 Rad. Whatever you read was wrong.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Rad = 0.01 J / Kg
Don't forget the per Kg. Also you will notice that Daddy0930 would include the arctan of his shoe size in the calculations if needed to make it so that Apollo could not be for real. It has become obvious that this is not merely a case of someone who does not understand. I think, the best we can hope to do here is to prevent him from convincing someone else who also does not understand radiation.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Even you got it wrong. You need the mass. Rad is 0.01 J per Kg
Your conversion is correct only for a 1Kg object absorbing 5J of radiation.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
What people need to understand is that most Apollo pictures, video and film are copies of copies of copies. Nasa keeps the original negatives protected, so most of what we see are copies of copies. During the process of making copies, you sometimes get scratches, lines, and hairs, that will turn up. One picture or film will be cleaner, but you may see another copy of the same picture or film and it'll be scratchy and dirty. Hoax dorks take this as some form of conspiracy, but it's not.
Mainsail76 5 months ago
its called an antenna
brendo150 6 months ago
Haha! Kicked those conspiracy theorist's asses with this video. At the least you cleaned up a majority of what skeptical idiots that were left. Though, to be honest, most people on YouTube are idiots and are not capable of providing enough evidence to successfully call themselves REAL conspiracy theorists.
Nice work, LunarTuner, and I like your voice.
saints360row 6 months ago
I'm sorry, but that "new" footage could have easily been manipulated by any kind of composition or effects rendering software. Not defending the hoax, just saying. That process would be incredibly simple to perform in After Effects, any kind of NLE, or Magic Bullet.
Just saying.
Dylanlip 6 months ago
@Dylanlip, yep, and I'm just saying that you're welcome to search the globe for any copy of the 1974 movie, "On the Shoulders of Giants" where this footage can be found and see if you find these lines. They weren't there when this was seen live on TV. "Could" does not mean "is".
Just saying.
LunarTuner 6 months ago
guys we landed on the moon, trust me i was there
06TurboVtec 6 months ago
voice is fucking annoying stfu
Essop101 7 months ago
@Essop101, How 'bout......NO!
Thanks for your opinion, but I couldn't give a rat's diarrhea deposit what you think of my voice! Be thou annoyed!
LunarTuner 7 months ago
@Essop101 hahahah how about yes and fuck you....and your voice is still annoying, your poor friends and loved ones gota listen to that shit all the time.. for fucks sake mate
Essop101 7 months ago
@Essop101, you're not too smart are you. You do realize you come to my video post as a guest, right? You're entitled to your opinion about my voice (although I get many more compliments). And you know what? I'm also entitled to blocking you. You see, this is MY site!
Either you never had a mother or you didn't listen to her when she told you not to go to people's places and insult them. Or maybe your mother is just as tactless and stupid. I don't know. All I know is...
BYE! YOU'RE BLOCKED!
LunarTuner 7 months ago 3
When Apollo went to the moon, they set up some cornercubes that are still being used nearly every day to measure the distance to the moon. There is no doubt that they are there and they are one bit of proof that the "we never went to the moon" crowd can't explain away.
knowledgemonger 7 months ago
Exactly .... DVD retouched apollo mission !!! Thats what you have, the Mythbusters had an old vhf or beta version that the discovery channel had wish as not been manipulate yet .
leblancguillaume 7 months ago
@leblancguillaume, No, actually this is very much UNretouched as is shown. There is all kinds of crap on the DVD copy too. Of course, you can claim what you'd like. The truth is, the film "On the Shoulders of Giants" has been public since 1975 and no "lines" were ever seen until the Mythbusters copy (which was likely downloaded and not off of vhs, beta or any other tape version). Back up your "retouch" claim with some investigative data and come back.
LunarTuner 7 months ago
@LunarTuner Well show me where did you see that they downloaded it ?
Or show me an old vhf version of "On the Shoulders of Giants" not a dvd.
leblancguillaume 7 months ago
@leblancguillaume - Or better still, from my reply awe130;
"...download a high quality film rip of the 1972/1973 NASA documentary that this clip came from. Google 'Jsc-603 Apollo17 On The Shoulders Of Giants wmv', click on the first link, then click on the first search result, and download the 1.7 GB wmv file.
It's a direct rip from the original film, together with all the scratches, marks and lines you'd expect to see on film. You'll find that clip at 10:50, but again, no so-called wires"
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 Well I did and watch it and it was a digital version. You don't seem to understand I want to see a NONE digital version your version did not have scratches. And scratches on a film doesn't look like the wires we are talking about. And oh about the fact that Mythbusters had a downloaded version any proof ??
leblancguillaume 7 months ago
@leblancguillaume - With all due respect, how can you get a version online that is not digital? That is a high definition digital rip DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL 1973 FILM, with all the scratches and marks and countdown sequence etc of that ORIGINAL film, hence it's impossible to get any closer to the original film on a computer. If you want a non digital version then you have to buy a copy of the original documentary on film and play it through a projector. Talk about moving the goal posts :)
MTMind2 7 months ago
@leblancguillaume - And just to add, I've double checked that wmv file and it's resolution is 1920x1080, i.e. it's a 1080p rip, yes 1080p! Therefore you will not be able to find a better version of that clip anywhere else, not even on DVD, which has a lower resolution, or VHS which is even lower! Even if it were on Blu-ray (@1080p) it wouldn't look any better unless it was digitally enhanced to remove all marks and scratches, but that would be missing the point would it not?
MTMind2 7 months ago
@leblancguillaume - And why do you expect the scratches some claim are wires? The point is that the original film does not have the artifacts that some claim are wires. Clips like that are copied over and over again throughout the years, and during that time re transferred across mediums, i.e from film to VHS, and then from VHS to video, and therefore over time more and more artifacts are introduced and the overall quality falls. Therefore my video is as close to the original as you can get :)
MTMind2 7 months ago
Compress the videos and highlight the effects that they tried to hide. They were definitely using wires, all that bullshit is fake. Only an idiot would believe this stupid bullshit...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - Eh? Compression adds distortion and artifacts, it doesn't reveal details. As stated in this topic, the original NASA documentary that this clip is taken from (released in 1972, almost 40 years ago!), has no so-called wires. And one wire could not achieve all we see, as I've shown here;
/watch?v=eH-8suPW5pw
The easiest way to prove it was faked is to, like Mythbusters, rig up someone and recreate the apollo footage (including falling over), and yet no-one has achieved this!
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 Yes it does... I've done a lot of experiments and it conclusive. These fuckers faked the whole thing... It's like putting red dye in a solution to highlight hidden particles. It's like pouring paint over that invisible man. Changing the colors, black and white, reversing the polarities to the negative, video compression, widescreen, fullscreen etc.. You would be surprise what you will find if you experiment for yourself with a good program and new age technology vs their old...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - We can take photos of any scene, compress them, and artifacts will appear that do not belong there. If you're so confident of your 'experiments', then upload them via imageshack and give us a link to your results. Better still, do so with Apollo photos and show the world the results of your 'analysis'. And again, why has no-one been able to DEMONSTRATE how the moon landings were so-called faked? We see magician's secrets revealed all the time, so apollo footage should be easy.
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 I've done that, I've seen not ONE anomaly that remotely suggests a wire, only hidden particle that I've tried to hide in my experiments. It pops up like a sore thumb. I'm not posting any videos that are debatable. You people will only say I edited it and it would all be for nothing. I need hard concrete evidence of a hoax before I post and I'm working on it, believe me. This debate abroad proves that it was FAKE, if not, why debate it. I'm on offense, you and your likes defend it...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - Ah yes, the classic "them and us" nonsense. If you're going to argue, argue on the evidence alone, not on the basis of personalities, types or stereotypes. Until you can produce your evidence, then your evidence is worthless. There are debates on YT claiming there are alien bases on the moon and Apollo ended after being warned to stay away by those aliens. By your logic, that must be true because it's being debated. I've seen all the claims of a fake, and none of them hold up.
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 I don't debate on issues that doesn't arouse my belief whatsoever. In the minds of most individuals, aliens doesn't exist, because we can't prize witness to it. I'm not excluded from that equation, therefore I will never debate it or it's likes. If you believe that the moon landing was real, why waste your time with bozos that doesn't, they will never turn just because..., right? You are here, because you need a better reason other than your own to conclude this hoax. Prove me wrong...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - Again you make assumptions. I don't see those who believe the landings were fake as 'bozos', neither do I see those who believe in alien bases/abductions, ghosts, the paranormal, religions etc, as bozos either, just people with different beliefs. I debate because I enjoy it (don't you?), not because I assume my beliefs MUST be right and others MUST be wrong. So as I said before, argue on the evidence, since it is possible (and preferable) to disagree without it being personal.
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 "Bozo," is in reference to your adversary as a joke versus your claims. You both could believe in ghosts, but not in that particular house way or location. I was just saying, I don't believe in aliens so I won't touch it, because I'm not interested. But on the other hand, I do believe in the spirit world, (GOD, JESUS) but some people take it too far to create non-believers, so I don't touch it on here, because I do believe. The more we all debate this issue, the more it becomes FAKE...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - Which is that's exactly what I DON'T assume. I see no-one as bozos based upon their beliefs, only by their behaviour (i.e. being immature, rude, disrespectful etc)! Hence I attack the CLAIMS not the person, but if I consider the claims to be ridiculous, even stupid, that doesn't automatically mean the person stating them is stupid too. As for debating issues, whether God exists or not is one of the oldest debates around and still goes on today, that doesn't make it more FAKE.
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 Some people have a bad misconception of what is stupid and what they don't understand to be stupid... The FAKE thingy was in reference to the moon landing, not GOD, that issue I stated is closed for debating... If you are offended by my assessment towards people clowning about the moon landings, what are you debating about? You can't change anyone without proof or concrete evidence, so what achievements are you fixing to receive? People minds are made up on both sides, can you fix that?
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper - I know you were referring to the moon landings and not God, I was making the point that it applies to all subjects, Apollo is not some special case, therefore the idea that debating a controversy somehow makes it true is just nonsense. And offended? Which part of "I debate because I enjoy it" did you not understand? ;-) I'm not here to change your mind, I'm here to debate, which is the purpose of having a comments section is it not? Or do you have another reason to be here?
MTMind2 7 months ago
@MTMind2 Now I was making a point. I was saying, if you continue to debate about an issue, no one will believe it, because both sides will have a good argument and people who are sure of the side they choose my change it to, "I'm not sure." You get enough people with that, it will be ruled out as unresolved and in most cases FAKE or a HOAX. This is why government trolls are fighting so hard, because the opposition is seemingly more truthful and logical, because the government/NASA is corrupted.
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago