Uhuh, so you are going to analyze it. No mystery, because you are incompetent and come up with horseshit evasion. And as predicted, you aren't going to analyze anything because you are incompetent. You don't have the technical background to disprove your own batshit sources and claims! And the moronic, it's all faked implication. This is data from multiple sources, multiple missions and spanning decades. The readings correspond to expected results using energy emissions and a whole battery of effects from the magnetosphere for one thing. There is a massive industry that studies this whole field, with technical papers also spanning 50 years with copious detail! A clown can say the whole world is faked. It's like somebody waiting outside the bathroom dying to go for a pee, finally entering through the door and coming out relieved. A clown would say, how do you know they urinated. A clown can dispute anything with their ignorance. That's because you are totally ignorant of everything involved. I can't imagine how anyone with zero knowledge about anything relating to space travel, photography, video, filming, gravity and space radiation could argue a single thing and do so for nearly 2 decades. Most people who develop a "hobby" actually learn about the damn subject!
I can't see how you can consider this to be proof. Those multiple source might be controlled by the same group of people. It might be a big lie. You're not using the scientific method*. You're just concluding what you want to be true. * https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...12j0i512l4.8004j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Stop right there. You can't see how anything - period. You can't see how one single batshit source you quote is inaccurate, yet of course you never apply that same "scientific method". You clown around claiming everything is fake and your "scientific method" ignores the insane build-up of personnel this entails. You have no logic, no critical thinking, no objectivity, you have never once used any scientific method. You have ridiculous double standards, are hyper gullible, show no signs of integrity, thrive exclusively on confirmation bias and for some unbelievable reason, despite you having no expertise in any subject, worse than a layman, you think your opinion has any value.
This is just empty rhetoric and invective. You've discredited yourself several time on this forum. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665
Incorrect. It is a very accurate assessment of the kind of person you are. Spam statement. When all else fails he reaches into his bag of spam and comes out with his batshit 'discredited' garbage. When somebody like this, who has zero expertise, no logic, no critical thinking, no objectivity, no integrity and themselves 20 years of internet failure and no credibility, actually stands in judgement of me, it is quite laughable how they think their useless and inaccurate opinion counts. This below is by no means a concise list of his spam tactics, but it gets most of them - if it wasn't 100% true it would be quite amusing, but in reality it is just sad beyond words. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :- 1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake." He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such. 2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source. or "That's a disinfo site." He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations". 3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it " For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax. 4. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. " or "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly." This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement. 5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist." This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test". 6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him? This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored. 7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...." So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked. 8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked." or "I can't see what you're referring to." He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. Or, he simply denies seeing something that is completely irrefutably obvious. 9. Idiotic Closes: "You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..." or "you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video" The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel. 10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim. 11. Never mind that - look over here: When this hopeless individual has exhausted his inept repertoire of responses comes his most used spam. He resorts to spamming his wall of crap and ignoring the main issue! "Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real." "Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the anomalies I pointed out in post #xx so the "insert evidence" issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it." "This lame stand of your totally exposes you as a shill*" "It just makes you look like a horse's a-s and the viewers can see it. I don't see any point in my continuing to reiterate this." What a sad, sad liar this person is. They have been humiliated completely on dozens of subjects, thousands of times on Apollo, yet they spew this cut and paste hogwash almost every time. 12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests". "You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed." "....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk" 13. Moronic Translations: This is the ridiculous post where he interprets his crazy viewpoint on something regardless of how many times it has already been addressed. It usually has some bearing on his equally moronic "Credibility Tests". "Translation: The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid addressing it." This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome.
This info of yours is second hand and there is no source for it. It is pathetic spam and has been reported. From Frenat: No, it looks like as he got more information he was able to register a more informed position. Only a complete ignoramus would assume the very first data told the entire story. In addition to the fact that their trajectory took them around the thickest parts of the belts, then there is the fact that polyethylene was also used as shielding. The article lies about the path AND the shielding. Badly researched or deliberate mistruths because of a hoaxie bias? Probably a little of both. That is what the data shows. Their orbital data shows it. The observations of them leaving Earth orbit shows it and the tracking data shows it. You'd know that if you did actual research but we all know that as a bot you are incapable of anything beyond copy/paste. From me in 2015! More spam from you! Your article contains only a few points that can be summarised by the following:- Van Allen discovers radiation belts, decides shielding over and above aluminum is required. Later on after many more years of research, with route planning that targets the outer areas, aluminum is sufficient. That last paragraph is provably a lie. From Florida, Saturn V downrange paths, followed ground tracks that formed a 30 degree inclined orbit. There is no possible way to go through the heart of the belts when leaving orbit at that inclination. The trans lunar injection routes all traversed the areas on the very outside of the belts, where flux density is hundreds of times less than the dangerous central region. Do you have any comment to make about this? James Van Allen:- [/QUOTE] A total lie. Prove he hadn't changed it after any one of the data gathering experiments he subsequently performed! https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/ Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts. Apollo 11 bypassed the inner belt and only passed through the weaker part of the outer belt (Fig. 4). According to NASA’s ‘The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology’, the high-altitude nuclear tests would have had a significant impact on Apollo orbits but NASA scientists had accounted for this possibility in radiation-protection planning. Fig. 4: This figure shows only the final leg of the path through the belts. Red marks indicate the time in 10-minute intervals of the Apollo 11 flight. The first red dot near Earth is the point of TLI. Photo: Apollo 11’s Translunar Trajectory Several factors worked in favour of the minimum exposure trajectory. We all know that Earth’s axis is tilted by 23.5° relative to the ecliptic plane. In 1969, the magnetic north pole was displaced from the geographical north pole by 11.4°. Therefore in 1969, the Van Allen radiation belts could have had a maximum inclination of 34.9° (23.5°+11.4°) with respect to the ecliptic (Fig. 5). NASA currently admits it overestimated the level of danger in the low and medium Earth orbits, as a result spending too much money on building heavily protected spacecraft. You posting this half a dozen times and ignoring every response makes me suspicious that you are being paid! Science evolves, as does our understanding of the dangers. You have had it explained to you in language that a junior would understand, the NASA engineers designed a very simple trajectory skirting the far weaker areas! I am suspicious that you may not be able to read properly!
First of all the anomalies in the footage* have already proven that Apollo was a hoax so the radiation issue isn't about whether they faked it, but why they had to fake it. The above is an alterative scenario. Just presenting an alternative scenario doesn't debunk a theory. It's still plausible that Van Allen's first conclusions reflect reality and NASA coerced him into changing his position. He could have been coerced into doing more experiments and giving bogus results. If it were to turn out that the scenario you present was true, there would still be the anomalies that prove the fakery. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-18#post-1073057326 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816044
The Gish-gallup spam when he realizes his ass is getting kicked once again. Apollo and NASA have provided data and proof on every aspect of the missions and internet clowns have provided jack in response. You keep talking about anomalies when every single one of your piffling claims has been shot down. You cowardly refuse to address the rebuttal on each and every one of your total failures. Your so called "hobby" is 20 years of repetitious spam and fail. There is no radiation issue, it was solved for short term flights absent of any solar storm. There was no reason to fake it and doing so was orders of magnitude harder to do than actually going. Faking the rocks is impossible, something you cowardly avoid addressing. It debunks your inaccurate and pathetic batshit claims. There is no plausibility whatsoever. You argue like a cornered child. There is no scenario where someone like you would have the integrity or balls to admit anything. You have been given flightpaths that MUST have been correct due to the location and direction taken by the Saturn V. They launched easterly from Florida 28.5 degrees north of the equator!
Kaysing worked as a technical writer at Rocketdynes jet propulsion laboratory, a division of North American Aviation, in 1956, in the period prior to the development of the Apollo missions. In September 1956, he became a service analyst there, in 1958 a service engineer, and in 1962 a publications analyst. From 1956 to 1963 Kaysing served as head of technical publications for Rocketdyne. The Rocketdyne scientists with whom he worked expressed to him that there was enough technology at the time to perhaps send a crewed rocket to the Moon, but not enough technology developed to return safely to Earth. They also spoke of the very real problem of traveling through atmospheric radiation without harm to the astronauts as a problem that yet needed to be solved. The engineers, who were aware of all the technical issues involved in sending a man to the moon, once estimated that the odds of sending a man to the moon successfully on the first try were at least 10,000 to 1 against. Kaysing worked with the engineers, he knew what they believed to be true, and Kaysing's beliefs were taken from the Rocketdyne engineers regarding the problems associated with the Apollo program. Kaysing was not the ignorant person you make him out to be.
Irrelevant. Even if his ignorant claims were about the Mercury program that finished in 1963 he is still unqualified to do so! Bullshit and hearsay. You see, you actually know nothing whatsoever about this, you're just making up crap! He left before even Apollo begun and before the actual engines used on Apollo were in their infancy. Clavius: Bibliography - bill kaysing "Rocketdyne manufactured only the main engines for the some of the launch vehicles, not the electronics, computers, or structures or much of anything having to do with the spacecraft themselves. Mr. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, shortly after the final Apollo equipment configuration was announced and before Rocketdyne had begun work integrating their designs with Apollo. In fact, Kaysing left just prior to some significant breakthroughs with the F-1 engine designs and could not really be considered an authority on how those engines succeeded. Finally, Mr. Kaysing never specified what actual projects he worked on at Rocketdyne. Since his technical publications team comprised only four individuals for a company developing dozens of engine designs, we speculate that his involvement would have been rather limited to one or two specific projects. We cannot presume without evidence that Mr. Kaysing ever actually worked on any of the projects that would be later associated with Apollo." ________________________________________ More Kaysing batshit Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: Some Cosmored "Hoax" Links (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
You keep trying to say something has been ‘proven’ because you say so. Unfortunately, what you believe to have been proven has been repeatedly debunked. Therefore, the ‘anomalies’ have not been proven at all. One must apply critical thinking to ascertain which explanation of something is true. You seem unable to do that. You have convinced yourself that what you believe is true, therefore any other explanation must be false. From all I know related to psychology and science, irrational beliefs are inherently irrational. By definition irrational beliefs can’t be dislodged with logic or evidence which is why you will never believe anything other than the moon landings were a hoax For those who distrust the government, it might be easy to believe that the moon landings were a hoax just by reading the posts of somebody like you. However, if one looks further, it’s easily discernible that the landings were not a hoax. This is a rational person applying rational critical thinking. I have to say that after investigation Kaysing a bit, it’s easy to see he could not have been who he is said he was. There is a huge discrepancy between what he says and his alleged position at Rocketdyne and his level of knowledge. Just because Kaysing was a technical writer at Rocketdyne in the 1950’s doesn’t mean he knew what he was talking about in his self-published book. You do know that Kaysing has admitted he knew ‘zero’ about rockets.
Is that code for you have no idea what you are trolling about but think you are a good guesser? Kaysing was clueless, I put up a whole page of his proven failures. I suppose since you 3 jokers don't understand what failures you all are, he's a hero to you. Meh!
You're one to talk about failures. You failed in your attempt to obfuscate this anomaly. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676 Do you think anyone was fooled by this attempt of yours to debunk the support wire and slow-motion theory? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gene-cernan-jump-proves-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/ No one was fooled. You failed. Do you think anyone was fooled by your attempt to make people think the Chinese spacewalk was real? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/ No one was fooled. You failed.
Have to chuckle at the spammer going on the offensive! Indeed, most of the failures I talk about belong to you, you are the expert on failure. It isn't an anomaly and like the comedy spammer you are, you fail to even understand basic occurences that children can see quite clearly. There is no obfuscation in a flat surface failing to do what it should do on Earth, doing exactly what it should do in a vacuum and you of course lying about what is happening. No debunking is needed for a moronic theory like yours. What was demonstrated quite clearly is that Cernan launches regolith in unison with his jump. Using physics that you will never understand, I showed Cernan's motion in line with lunar freefall. Simultaneously, we see regolith land at the exact same time proving he cannot be on the idiot wires. I didn't even discuss the missing center of gravity changes incurred from wire support - demonstrating that they cannot be in use. Spam hot air. Nobody needed to be fooled. What was needed was anyone who was watching it to have logic, critical thinking and integrity, to enable them to see that your idiotic claims were wrong. Needless to say, you have none of those easy to acquire skills and needless to say you are afraid to admit your never ending conveyor belt of errors. Off topic spam noise. Once again your other idiotic pet "hobby" was taken apart. Even the guy who made your stupid video says Apollo or 911 weren't what conspiracy fools claim. I made THE clearest of videos showing your face-planting bubble was a piece of jagged rotating ice and you STILL denied it. I debunked (yes I did!) every item in his video and your integrity-less response was to ignore the entire response.
Mechanic — “I am sorry sir, I heard you need a heart transplant, I can do it tomorrow” Man — “But you are a mechanic, not a cardiac surgeon” Mechanic — “You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” VS Random person —- The wind is coming from the North Other random person — How do you know that? Random person — You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows If you don’t understand how stupid your comment was, I guess I understand why you believe that the moon landings were a hoax. If somebody is going to write a book debunking something related to rockets, gravity, and so forth, one should possess some specialist knowledge about it to be credible. Kaysing is not credible. There was no failure. The only failure is on your part for not being able to move beyond your own cognitive biases. Let’s put it this way — Nobody is being fooled by your repeated spam posts. You have failed to convince anyone that the moon landings were a hoax.
In this video... (1:06:50 time mark) ...It says that NASA says that Apollo 14 went through the middle part of the belts.
You can't even get your spam videos correct. That video is 54 minutes long! But so what, Apollo 14 took the same inclined orbit as all the missions.
Sorry. I meant to post this video. https://www.bitchute.com/video/CoP5WywgvPHs/ Sometimes I drink too much coffee.
Bullshit. Always you look for any excuse to obfuscate and spam. And please quit sharing your life excuses, I care as little about them as it is possible to do. Earth Orbit Data (nasa.gov) Geodetic latitude.
I googled around and found this. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr10.htm (excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The translunar injection trajectory lay closer to the plane of the geomagnetic equator than that of previous flights and, therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts. (2) The space radiation background was greater than previously experienced. Whole-body gamma spectroscopy was also performed postflight on the crew and indicated no cosmic ray induced radioactivity.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! Apollo 14 had the unfortunate problem that the Earth was tilted towards the ecliptic. This meant that most of the inclination of their wider angled trajectory (as noted in the above document) was offset by the tilt of the Earth. This is reflected in the larger dose of radiation. This is widely known and has been discussed many times before, but your idiotic film maker seems to think he has stumbled on some "ahah" moment! Let's look at the logic that you seem to be suggesting here. NASA freely tells everyone that it took a trajectory closer to the center of the "deadly belts" even though they were supposed to be faking this crap. Yeah, like that makes any sense! It is always the same problem, hoaxers invariably rely on idiotic videos that conflate the effects of the energetic particles through the CSM hull. Stumble upon this and maybe learn something. Apollo and the Van Allen Belts (archive.org)
That looks like a typical damage-control article written by a public-relations agency. Could you link to a discussion on this? Preferably, a discussion which has some real hoax-believers participating as a bunch of pro-Apollo people talking to each other often ignore the clearest evidence that points to a hoax.
There is no clear evidence pointing to a hoax. you still resort to screaming about anomolies proving it while you willfully IGNORE the fact that anomolies prove nothing.
