|
Post by tomblvd on Feb 6, 2012 21:35:11 GMT -4
Also useful would be A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62) Available from NTRS or can also send. I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. There must have been plenty of radiation measurements taken from unmanned probes by entities other than NASA. Is that the case? Knowing the exact type of radiation and density or exposure medical types like radiation oncologists with the help of physicists should be able to sort this out easily. If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. Am I the only one who finds it jaw-droppingly ironic that forthethrill, in a post asking for "comprehensive scientific documents" on radiation, actually quotes the title of one of these "comprehensive scientific documents"? Stunning.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Feb 17, 2011 16:21:34 GMT -4
Maybe not, but there is disagreement; I've discovered it myself when trying to find out exactly where the belts were and how big. Perhaps you are having trouble with the actual definition of the VA belts. They are in no way a static thing. The term "belts" is actually misleading. "Van Allen Radiation Fields" is probably more descriptive. Given the immense variability of our Sun, there is a good chance that the nature of the "belts" is going to vary all the way from months to hours. There is no way to get a static "measurement" of the VABs. Depending on many variables, the size, shape and content of the belts is going to be very, very different.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Jan 7, 2011 21:36:49 GMT -4
I think that eventually Jarrah will have to join this forum. I actually wouldn't mind, just so we will finally have a chance to debate with him properly. Its always a mystery to me that the one man who is addicted to the moon conspiracy more than anyone else, just uses this site to mine for quotes. Where's the mystery? On Youtube you can edit videos to say what you want, or you can use your teacher to pretend to be an "expert" for one of your videos: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9570&st=75&p=100541entry100541 and nobody can point it out. All they can do is take it elsewhere or make a different video as a response. Here he would have to answer specific questions. He is a liar and a fraud, and people like that avoid places like this.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Oct 6, 2010 17:12:29 GMT -4
Well people, we may have a new contender for the dumbest post ever on an Apollo Hoax thread. This one is from ATS, and the brain surgeon responsible is poster (and soon to be legend) "GoldenFleece" He posted a close up of the Ascent Stage of the LM and said that it "looks like a second grade art project". When asked what, specifically, bothered him about the appearance he put forth this gem: www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg212#pid9689969Yep, the gold mylar should have been "tarnished" and "dusty" after traveling in space. Dumber than dirt.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Oct 5, 2010 12:21:19 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Oct 5, 2010 10:55:07 GMT -4
A weighted feather is still an airfoil, and will flutter in an atmosphere. African or European? (Python fans help those who don't get it)
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Oct 3, 2010 15:18:06 GMT -4
It's a real madhouse over there...kudos to you all for putting up with that mess. Perhaps the best HB answer of the thread. When asked "what calculations were the AGC unable to do that it should have done?" Skudo replied: That's cluelessness you have to work at.....
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 20, 2010 13:26:02 GMT -4
Good post, yet I'm still skeptical You can't just say you're skeptical without giving specific reason for that skepticism. Please give us a list of the explanations that don't convince you, and we'll expand upon them. One that was mentioned in brief but you may have missed. NASA sent lunar sample to the Soviets, who had their own samples to compare to. They agreed that the samples were very similar.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 17, 2010 16:50:53 GMT -4
Oh great, Fetzer's entry to the "debate" is to post pretty much the same list of long debunked videos for the fifth time. Seriously even if I knew nothing about the subject I would wonder why he can't explain anything himself. Yep. "Argumentum ad youtubum" should be outlawed. Other than that, it should exclude the poster from being taken seriously. You are right, if you need a youtube video to get your point across, you shouldn't be inserting yourself in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2010 18:13:19 GMT -4
I think I'll email Jack White and ask him a few questions.....
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2010 13:34:48 GMT -4
The poster got an email from Greg Landis, and it confirms what Jay et. al. has stated:
It's worth mentioning that I've noticed almost any time someone has contacted a scientist concerning information in a paper, article, video or other form of correspondence, the scientist has been very forthcoming with information in a prompt and gracious manner.
Something to remember.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2010 9:03:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 16:50:09 GMT -4
White keeps asserting that his studies "speak for themselves". Somebody over there needs to tell him, "no, they don't". They have gaping holes in them, some of them have been dropped from Aulis, of all places (IIRC), and they fall far short of demanding any iota of deference.
They are his studies, if they are worthwhile, he needs to stand by them.
If not, I would dismiss them out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -4
Toot away, it's a very good analysis.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 14, 2010 15:44:57 GMT -4
Thanks guys (er, and gals)!
|
|