Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The operative phrase being: "if necessary it can be converted into a terribly effective atomic bomb carrier." That is the sort of thing you were expected to say if you wanted the US to spend four billion dollars on a space station at the height of the Cold War. I'm not going to bother to defend von Braun further. His personality is irrelevant to the materiality of the moon landing.

Von Braun was the champion behind the manned space program. And behind much of the (rocket) technology and concepts of Apollo. So he is very relevant in determining what kind of person would be able to convince the administration that a hoax could be pulled off.

But what cannot be denied is that he was not AGAINST the idea of arming a space station. So my initial post was correct. He also expected to use his Saturn Rockets to Mars in the '80's... Right....


[edit on 11-6-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by DJW001
Aside to FoosM: Thank you for bringing the "light flash" literature to my attention. I was shooting from the hip when I naively assumed that phosgenic phenomena in space necessarily had the same causes in space as on Earth.

Your welcome.
Nice to see people on the boards willing to admit to errors during heated debates.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
Aside to FoosM: Thank you for bringing the "light flash" literature to my attention. I was shooting from the hip when I naively assumed that phosgenic phenomena in space necessarily had the same causes in space as on Earth.

Your welcome.
Nice to see people on the boards willing to admit to errors during heated debates.

Oh, the ironing...

I think it's time to review how well FoosM has admitted errors... Don't have time now, but I'll be back...


And..

PPK55, HAVE YOU FOUND THOSE PROMISED VIDEOS YET????

Originally posted by torch2k

Originally posted by FoosM
Would you agree that NASA has not fully proven without a doubt what the 'phenomenon' (their words) is? I mean this is what I mean about scientific curiosity, where is it? Did they do tests to dismiss all other possibilities?

NASA has provided a plausible, likely explanation for the phenomenon. What would you have them do next - offer all the implausible, unlikely explanations one could think of? Martian spotlights? Venusian brain rays? Or Reichian/Kirlian auras, as DeMeo proposes?

Tell me Torch2k, if somebody told you the moon had a blue glow or haze around it, what would you say?

Three things, in this order:

1. Show me:

2. Tell me:

3. Prove to me:

Sorry Torch2K, all irrelevant to our discussion.
This is not about DeMeo. Or myself for that matter, This, as I said before, is about determining NASA's unwillingness to delve into unexplained phenomena. And what we should be agreeing upon or disagreeing upon is whether or not NASA puts any real effort in exploring such phenomena with worthy scientific studies.

But you are sliding into, defending NASA's answer without investigating how they got to that answer, attacking DeMeo's credentials and asking me to prove something I possibly cant. I dont get millions tax funding to research and explore outer space. That's NASA's job.

So I will ask you again, whether or not you agree with NASA's explanation:

Would you agree that NASA has not fully proven without a doubt what the 'phenomenon' (their words) is?

Especially when you have:

A transient lunar phenomenon (TLP), or lunar transient phenomenon (LTP), is a short-lived light, color, or change in appearance on the lunar surface.
Claims of short-lived phenomena go back at least 1,000 years, with some having been observed independently by multiple witnesses or reputable scientists. Nevertheless, the majority of transient lunar phenomenon reports are irreproducible and do not possess adequate control experiments that could be used to distinguish among alternative hypotheses. Few reports concerning these phenomena are ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the lunar scientific community rarely discusses these observations.
Most lunar scientists will acknowledge that transient events such as outgassing and impact cratering do occur over geologic time: the controversy lies in the frequency of such events.

Explanations for the transient lunar phenomena fall in four classes: outgassing, impact events, electrostatic phenomena, and unfavorable observation conditions.

On June 18, 1178, five or more monks from Canterbury reported an upheaval on the moon shortly after sunset. "There was a bright new moon, and as usual in that phase its horns were tilted toward the east; and suddenly the upper horn split in two..

During the night of April 19, 1787, the famous British astronomer Sir William Herschel noticed three red glowing spots on the dark part of the moon.[5]

In 1866, the experienced lunar observer and mapmaker J. F. Julius Schmidt made the claim that Linné crater had changed its appearance. he stated that the crater "at the time of oblique illumination cannot at all be seen"

On November 2, 1958, the Russian astronomer Nikolai A. Kozyrev observed an apparent half-hour "eruption" that took place on the central peak of Alphonsus crater During this time, the obtained spectra showed evidence for bright gaseous emission bands due to the molecules C2 and C3

On October 29, 1963, two Aeronautical Chart and Information Center cartographers, James A. Greenacre and Edward Barr,[9] at the Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, manually recorded very bright red, orange, and pink color phenomena on the southwest side of Cobra Head;

On the night of November 1–2, 1963, a few days after Greenacre's event, at the Observatoire du Pic-du-Midi in the French Pyrenees, Zdenek Kopal[13] and Thomas Rackham[14] made the first photographs of a "wide area lunar luminescence."[15] His article in Scientific American transformed it into one of the most widely publicized TLP events.[16] Kopal, like others, had argued that Solar Energetic Particles could be the cause of such a phenomenon.[17]

During the Apollo 11 mission Houston radioed to Apollo 11: "We've got an observation you can make if you have some time up there. There's been some lunar transient events reported in the vicinity of Aristarchus." Astronomers in Bochum, West Germany, had observed a bright glow on the lunar surface—the same sort of eerie luminescence that has intrigued moon watchers for centuries. The report was passed on to Houston and thence to the astronauts. Almost immediately, Armstrong reported back, "Hey, Houston, I'm looking north up toward Aristarchus now, and there's an area that is considerably more illuminated than the surrounding area. It seems to have a slight amount of fluorescence."

In 1992, Audouin Dollfus of the Observatoire de Paris reported anomalous features on the floor of Langrenus crater using a one-meter (3.2-foot) telescope.

Or could it be Cherenkov effect?

Argon?

Although the search for water is clearly the most important objective of the LCROSS mission, there will probably be other discoveries. This author would like to predict a potential discovery that hasn't received a lot of media coverage: argon gas.

Argon is a noble gas that gives a nice blue glow to some fluorescent light tubes. We know it's on the Moon. Rock samples from the Apollomissions held traces of argon, which is produced by the decay of radioactive rocks.

or

Lovell: "...maybe we have an atmosphere on the moon..."
news.google.com...,4469149

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by torch2k

Originally posted by FoosM
Would you agree that NASA has not fully proven without a doubt what the 'phenomenon' (their words) is? I mean this is what I mean about scientific curiosity, where is it? Did they do tests to dismiss all other possibilities?

NASA has provided a plausible, likely explanation for the phenomenon. What would you have them do next - offer all the implausible, unlikely explanations one could think of? Martian spotlights? Venusian brain rays? Or Reichian/Kirlian auras, as DeMeo proposes?

The reason why I mention DeMeo is that his explanation to why it cant be a smudge makes complete sense:

Dust Smudge on the Camera Lens?

As noted above, the Lunar surface is a dusty place, and it is reasonable to postuate that a dust smudge on the camera lens might possibly yield some kind of color distortion on the filmed images. The same reel of film which captured the two Apollo 12 blue-astronaut images had such a dust smudge on the lens for part of the sequence. A new argument has therefore been raised, that the blue coloration is due to a "dust smudge", even though nobody has articulated exactly how such a smudge could create those blue-glowing effects. By my own thinking, if a smudge of dust particles on the Hasselblad camera lens surface could create sufficient prismatic diffraction of Lunar Sunlight reflecting off the bright-white space suits, it might create such a bluish halo effect. Superficially this seems reasonable, but upon further examination this argument fails to be conclusive, and there is much to contradict it.

Firstly, any dust smudge sufficient to diffract reflected Sunlight from the space-suits into its rainbow colors would not yield only a blue glow. It would produce some blue glow and red glow. A "rainbow" effect would be anticipated from a dust-smudge, much as what is seen above in the photo where solar glare and prismatic flaring created a distinct rainbow effect off the camera lens. There is no reason to anticipate postulated prismatic effects from a dust-smudge would produce only bluish tones.

Secondly, a dust smudge on the lens should obscure, distort and blur the images. There is some evidence of blurring on a few of the photos later in the camera sequence, as I show below. But in those cases, there is no evidence of bluish glows. And where there is blue glowing on photos claimed to be the consequence of dust-smudges, there is no evidence of blurring. The most pronounced blue-glows in these photographs show no signs of blurriness at all. If the theory of dust-smudges was correct, we should anticipate to see direct evidence of a dust smudge, as with obvious blurring of the image, at the same time the blue glows were appearing. Predominantly this is not the case.

Thirdly, while one of the Apollo 12 blue-astronaut photos has a rounded quality, the other one shows a quite different and distinct outward-flaring effect. The "flaring-blue" photo looks more like a kind of "Kirlian" electrophoto, as one gets on the Earth surface when a high-frequency field is used to excite the living bio-system, whereupon it glows sufficiently to create plasmatic flares radiating outward, which can then be recorded on a film plate. I will have more to say about this idea below. For now, however, I will merely point out the obvious flare-like shape of the brighter and more pronounced of the two blue-glowing astronaut images, which is different from the other more roundish image. If both photos were caused by what is supposed to be the same dust smudge on the same camera lens, then it would have to be a completely different shape of "smudge" to create the two different "blue-glowing smudge patterns".

There are in fact other Apollo Lunar mission photos which show very distinct camera-lens dust smudges, and we can review them for comparison. For example, below are two such images taken from the Apollo 16 Lunar mission, from a sequence where all share this same very obvious smudging and blurring.

NASA Images AS16-116-18676 (left) and AS16-116-18679 (right) from the Apollo 16 Mission.


This camera smudge is quite clear, and it blurs the parts of the image over which it is located. There is no bluish coloration apparent. But we can do even better. There is one photo where this same camera blur was positioned directly over an astronaut, with the dark blackness of open space behind him. In that photo, AS16-116-18723, there is a "blur-field" around him, but no transparent blue-glowing field. Below I reproduce the pertinent part from the original high-resolution image, and you can download the full image from the provided link, for comparisons.

torch2k

One important question still remains, though. DeMeo does state that these photos were taken on the moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Do you disagree with him on that? And if you don't, how does it affect the importance he ascribes to these photos?

What mission was it then??

Originally posted by debunky
Concorde a natural developement?
First delta wing passenger jet
first faster than sound passenger jet
first thing with that ridiculous nose
And of course it went mach2 right away, not mach 0.9, mach 1.1, 1.3, no 2, right from the start.

So did we send probes to the moon in the 60ies?

Chuck Yeager was credited with being the first man to break the sound barrier in level flight on 14 October 1947

As the science of high-speed flight became more widely understood, a number of changes led to the eventual disappearance of the "sound barrier". Among these were the introduction of swept wings, the area rule, and engines of ever increasing performance. By the 1950s many combat aircraft could routinely break the sound barrier in level flight, although they often suffered from control problems when doing so, such as Mach tuck. Modern aircraft can transit the "barrier" without it even being noticeable.

By the late 1950s the issue was so well understood that many companies started investing in the development of supersonic airliners, or SSTs, believing that to be the next "natural" step in airliner evolution. History has proven this not to be the case, at least yet, but Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 both entered service in the 1970s regardless.

Although Concorde and the Tu-144 were the first aircraft to carry commercial passengers at supersonic speeds, they were not the first or only commercial airliners to break the sound barrier. On August 21, 1961, a Douglas DC-8 broke the sound barrier at Mach 1.012 or 1,240 km/h (776.2 mph) while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet (12,510 m). The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.[15] A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on February 19, 1985. It also reached over 5g

From one man 1947 to commercial use in 1976
That took 29 years.

Lets look deeper:

In the late 1950s, the United Kingdom, France, United States and Soviet Union were considering developing supersonic transport. The British Bristol Aeroplane Company and the French Sud Aviation were both working on designs, called the Type 223 and Super-Caravelle, respectively. Both were largely funded by their respective governments.[8] The British design was for a thin-winged delta shape[9] (which owed much to work by Dietrich Küchemann) for a transatlantic-ranged aircraft for about 100 people, while the French were intending to build a medium-range aircraft.[8]

all from wiki

So from the late 50's to mid 70's. 20 years 4 countries.

Seems pretty natural to me.

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM, your game here is obvious.

All you're doing is scanning through the many "hoax" websites out there, and repeating their idiotic nonsense:

Apollo 16 anomalies:

instant communication between the moon and earth:

06 00 54 12 CDR-EVA If Charlie goes down-Sun to take the picture, we're in trouble.
06 00 54 15 CC All right. We can see that.

06 00 54 17 CDR-EVA It ought to be in the pan
06 00 54 18 CC Right. We see it.

I know it was relatively fast, but this is like talking in person.
wasnt there supposed to be a two second delay?

It is so easy to fool the uneducated....whichis WHY those stupid "hoax" sites get it wrong, so often...and spread their baloney...

Those two little exchanges between CapCom (CC) and Young (CDR)? The time hacks depend on the source of the recording.

I mean, a five-year-old could figure that out!

SINCE the response times are so short, it is OBVIOUS that the recording is fromt he PERSPECTIVE of the Astronaut, on the Moon. HIS side of the conversation. IF you were on Earth, or you heard THOSE recordings, (the ones recorded at the MCC side) then you'd hear the time delay. It is a LIE (those clips, those citations) put out by the "hoax" sites...because they count on the fact that some people are gullible enough to jsut believe them, without doing ony individual research.

Strange Disney-like text (and these were hardcore test pilots risking their lives on...

Now...again. I HAVE URGED YOU to go actually read something, instead of slobbering all over those ridiculous "hoax" Internet sites.

The Astronauts, like just about EVERY military member, especially pilots, were foul-mouthed. It was the ultimate "Boy's Club" (still is...just listen, even to soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan...nothing has changed).

BUT...they knew, and they were reminded constantly by their bosses (fellow pilots, and Astronauts of course, within NASA) to cleanit up, BECAUSE they were in a huge fishbowl, both sight and sound.


If this doesn't convince you, just look at HOW we are invoking our internal censors (most of the time) right HERE on ATS!!! believe me, I use a lot of foul language, in context, and in certain situations. ( I AM a pilot, after all... ) BUT, on ATS...we have to clean it up, for a 'General' audience....

Pure delta-wings fell out of favour somewhat due to their undesirable characteristics, notably flow separation at high angles of attack (swept wings have similar problems), and high drag at low altitudes. This limited them primarily to high-speed, high-altitude interceptor roles.

And you try to tell me that they just kinda used them for big non intercepting passenger aircraft? Allow me to Next thing you will tell me is that they use the same rockets to shoot different satelites into space....

Also:

The High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT), also known as High-speed Research (HSR),[1] was a NASA project to design a supersonic transport. It was to be a future Supersonic Passenger Aircraft, able to fly Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound. The project started in 1990 and ended during 1999. The goal was to employ up-to-date technologies. It was intended to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean in half the time of a non-supersonic aircraft. It was to be fuel efficient, carry 300 passengers, and it would have allowed customers to buy tickets at a much lower price than that of a ticket on a Concorde. The goal for its maiden flight was within 20 years.

Direct proof that the Concorde is impossible. Nasa tried for 10 years to replicate one, They figured it would take them 20 years before they get even a prototype! Then they gave up. I wonder why?

And why didnt the russians get their tupolev 144 to fly?

Early flights in scheduled service indicated the Tu-144S was extremely unreliable. During 102 flights and 181 hours of scheduled freight and passenger flight time, the Tu-144S suffered at least 226 failures, 80 of them in flight. (The list was included in the Tu-144 service record provided by the USSR to BAC-Aérospatiale in late 1978, when requesting Western technological aid with the Tu-144, and is probably incomplete.[26]). A total of 80 of these failures were serious enough to cancel or delay the flight.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by debunky]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Don't have time now, but I'll be back...
And.. PPK55, HAVE YOU FOUND THOSE PROMISED VIDEOS YET????

hehe, you always say 'I'll be back' you're like the terminator, but not as cool.

This is one of the videos that shows the cutting from slow motion to normal speed, then back to slow. It's from Apollo 16. It's obvious at the 1.12 mark.

Watch for the second astro salute at about 1.12 in... but I would suggest watching it all. This is a great example of how they 'floated' on the wires.

Strange how they left such stunningly clear footprints when they were just floating around. Then again, it's apollo, so anything goes.



So if they're all bouncy and light how could they make what I like to call mini-me footprints next to the big ones ? Were there little astros as well ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ebaa4c862025.jpg[/atsimg]

edit: source pic AS16-107-17445

[edit on 11-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


That is pathetic!

After all that wait, and the challenge, you show nothing?

You found a video that, to educated people, looks entirely NORMAL...for the MOON!! In 1/6th G!

There is no "Slo-Mo" (keep a close eye on the regolith, as it is kicked up).

Keep a close eye on the CONSTANT, and evident, acceleration of objects in 1/6th G...it is consistent AT ALL TIMES!

Sheesh...There are NO WIRES! That is one of the stupidest claims by the "hoax-lovers" they've ever spewed from their pie holes.

Oh, and speaking of 'G'....GEE, you guys carp about not seeing Astronauts 'jump' high enough, due to the lower gravity....THEN, when you see that they CAN jump in a way impossible on Earth, you "think" it is wires?? ( :shk: )

You all ("hoax" believers) seem to have been poisoned by Hollywood depictions...and wouldn't recognize an actual video from an ALIEN environment, and a different-than-earth gravitational field if it hit you on the nose!

OH...BTW----watch the friggin' flag!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And....

So if they're all bouncy and light how could they make what I like to call mini-me footprints next to the big ones ? Were there little astros as well ?

"bouncy and light" ? ? Where did you come up with that junk??

>sigh<

IF you watched the video (you did, right?) you could see them sometimes ON THEIR TOES as they moved around.

Try it, if your brain can't imagine it...step on something that leaves a footprint, and THEN step with just your toes...see?

Oh...and...do I have to point this out?? IF they (as "hoax" liars claim) they were on "wires"...then WHY are there footprints, and all consistent in depth?

As to "light"? I'll let you do the math. Research, add up the weight of the Astronauts IF THEY WERE NAKED (you can estimate), then add the weight of all the equipment and EVA suits, add that up in Earth weight, then divide by 6.

Have fun.



[edit on 11 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Just for reference here is the original, so you can get an idea of the scale of the small mini-me footprints.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/486918331812.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ppk55


Wait...I think I see your comprehension problem...IF you look at the original close-up photo, are you suggesting that the boot prints pointed out by the arrows are TOO NARROW?? Is that it??

Ummm...did you not notice the small RIDGE??

The one in the foreground, that is partially blocking the view of the fnished prints??

I mean...how difficult is this...it isn't rocket science. (BUT, the "hoax" believers and lie spreaders, they believe in "rAcket" 'science', apparently...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

edit -- dyslexic typing syndrome...'DTS'....

[edit on 11 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ppk55


This is an extremely interesting video, as it is the perfect example of the multi-camera issue. We can view the photograph taken here:

www.nasaimages.org...:Astronaut-John-Young-leaps-from-lun

Note that the TV camera which recorded this moment live is clearly visible in the photograph. There is no scaffolding to support a "Peter Pan Rig." How do you explain how this sequence was faked? In detail, now. Draw a map of the area and indicate all the anomalies that your special effects sequence would produce.

Edit to fix link


[edit on 11-6-2010 by DJW001]