Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

So you all know the first few landings, were all FAKED right?

Anyhow that's what I come to accept, they did send probes but man made landing never happened.

In fact there were these photos that for the love of God I can't find anymore... but came across them couple of years ago, where you can see black and white photos of the CBS crew were staging the moon landing, there were about 10-15 photos... anyhow I guess it could have been some movie they were filming, but could have easily been used to stage the entire landing as well... I don't know why so many have hard time accepting that we NEVER went to the moon... 20 years and we're still incapable going back, so we keep sending probes and missiles to find water, etc... even though it could easily be accomplished by putting a man there to do research... figured 20 years and with this enormous technology move, this should easily done....

Anyhow that's just my 2cents, don't feel like getting into too much detail, but there is a lot more that go against the belief that we went to the moon... however I do think in later landing we actually made it there, but way after Russians!

[edit on 22-6-2010 by freighttrain]

reply to post by freighttrain


Oh, gawd!!! It will never end, the...the...(I just can't take it any more, it is too rude to even say out loud....)...

"FT", you turned to page 118, now, for chrissake...with that post.

Do us a favor, mate, and take a few hours to go back and READ, please, the entire thing???

Pretty please?? For that, you know, "Denying Ignorance" mantra that is so vitally important, IF we wish to have any future as a viable species on this planet, or anywhere else, for that matter...

( I may cower in a corner, and weep -- for the failure of our species, now...if THIS is going to continue to be the level of intellect we encounter, in future...)

Originally posted by R_Clark
This is a letter I just sent to CIO at Nasa ... change will occur when more complain... Please feel free to modify this to suit your needs in contacting Nasa too :



It is a travesty that you have spent so much of our tax money
protecting secrets of the few... Shame on all of you.

When a 25 year old Australian Rips holes in 20 years of
disinformation to the citizens who support your salaries..
www.youtube.com...
Videos : Moon Faker...

You write that as Jarrah has been exposed as an out-and-out liar.

How can you possibly look at the email from his teacher admitting that he started this as "class project", and she pretended to be an expert in perspective to help him out, and still hold him out to be some kind of "genius"?

What else did he lie about?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM






Oh not this again...

Im getting dizzy from having to go in circles with you guys about this.

Well lets take this step by step to see where the problem lies:

Yes or No, was the moon mapped prior to the Apollo "landings" ?

AGAIN you show how DIM you really are NONE repeat NONE of the craters on those pictures are LARGE enough to have been IMAGED by previous mapping missions IS that now plain enough for even YOU to understand.


In THIS picture

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Lots of the craters shown are only a FEW feet across far to small to have been pictured on ANY PREVIOUS mapping mission, also the tracks left by the Astronauts can be seen as well.

SO if you want to prove this wrong GO find the info YOU wont becuase you cant

PS FoosM remember the info you claim you can find would have to be before Dec 1972 ie the Apollo 17 mission to back up what you say!
I dont want you making a FOOL or should that be A FOOSM of yourself

[edit on 22-6-2010 by wmd_2008]

1. You dont know that what kind of pictures NASA took prior to Apollo. You really dont.
2. Any photos from LRO (NASA) is suspect, considering NASA faked the missions.
3. Has any independent space agency supplied the public with pictures or video showing the remains of any Apollo material on the moon? If no, well then see point 2. And if we are stuck on point 2, there is no proof of a manned landing on the moon. Sorry for you.

Originally posted by freighttrain

Anyhow that's just my 2cents,

I think you're overcharging.

reply to post by FoosM


Anyone care to ONCE AGAIN show 'FoosM' that he's being foolish?? I am tired of playing his games....

3. Has any independent space agency supplied the public with pictures or video showing the remains of any Apollo material on the moon? If no, well then see point 2. And if we are stuck on point 2, there is no proof of a manned landing on the moon.

So, so so...FoosM....so ---

Sorry for you.

Please, by all means, continue to yuck it up...but, I would implore you to take some tips from the concept of the "Darwin Awards".

Get educated before you procreate. Please.

You probably have a decent supply of DNA there, somewhere...but it needs to climb up into your brain and nest for a while....to become more fully formed. Lest you waste your ultimate potential.



[edit on 22 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by freighttrain
So you all know the first few landings, were all FAKED right?

Anyhow that's what I come to accept, they did send probes but man made landing never happened.

In fact there were these photos that for the love of God I can't find anymore... but came across them couple of years ago, where you can see black and white photos of the CBS crew were staging the moon landing, there were about 10-15 photos... anyhow I guess it could have been some movie they were filming, but could have easily been used to stage the entire landing as well...

hmmm... you may have something there...
Do you mean these:

CBS News Space Center in New York

























result:


Not bad CBS.
Imagine what CBS could make if they had NASA's budget.


This is why alot of people thought they saw the landing,
combine high emotional state with these CBS animations and people are programmed to think what they saw was real subconciously. Over the years the memories blend and they simply say they "Witnessed" the landing on TV.
When in fact it was all just smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by Komodo

 

Well Komodo, now that you are back, we still have the issue of laser existing in the 1960s. Here's the most recent post that you ran away from:

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Komodo


no .. i'm having a problem with you not stepping up to the plate and provide ATS with a picture of the exact laser that co-insides with your alleged data!! Do you have a picture of the EXACT laser, unmodified, first generation laser they had mounted?


as I said before..

can you plz post what the laser lookedlike back in .. ohh.. 1960's

Since Komodo seems to have pulled another disappearing act, I'll spare him the suspense and give him what he wants, but I still want to know why this is so important to the question at hand.

Here is a picture of the Maser developed at MIT in the late 50s and used to first measure the distance from the earth to the moon:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb55e851e6e4.jpg[/atsimg]

More informaion on the Maser

And here is a description of "Project Luna See" (get it?).

Optical Echoes from the Moon

A ruby optical maser radiating pulses of approximately 50 joules energy, 0.5 msec. duration, at 6943 A was used as the source. The transmitting optical system included a Cassegrain telescope of 12-inch diameter. The echoes were received on a Cassegrain telescope of 48-inch diameter, passed through an interference filter of 7A band-width and were detected with a photomultiplier tube of spectral response type S-20 cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature. The field of view of the receiving telescope was 0.2 milliradians.

The photoelectron count obtained in a 0.5 msec. interval at the expected time-delay was contemplated with the counts obtained in 0.5 msec. intervals where no echoes would be expected and where the only relevant contributions to the count were scattered light (photoelectric dark current was negligible).

Everything is there, spelled out in easy to understand terms, but I doubt it will matter much to Komodo.

Now, do you admit lasers existed in the early 60s?



so Tom, you agree with Jarrah that a relector is not needed to bounce a laser or maser off the moon. So the reflector is just a useless prop. What they should have done was put a laser on the moon, or better yet a mirror

I like this video of Jarrah's. He does have a point in this series.

Originally posted by FoosM
[

so Tom, you agree with Jarrah that a relector is not needed to bounce a laser or maser off the moon. So the reflector is just a useless prop. What they should have done was put a laser on the moon, or better yet a mirror

It would be easier for you if you just dressed in a clown suit and hung a "kick me" sign on your back.

Seriously, do you think this stuff isn't on the internet and easily proven?

There is an immense difference between the early moon bounce experiments "Project Luna See", and the later measurements made possible by the LRRRs. It isn't a matter of opinion, it can be measured, photon by photon.

History of Laser Ranging

The concept of receiving laser light echoes from the lunar surface proceeded more or less in parallel with the artificial satellite experiments. However, the spreading of a beam of outgoing laser light as it interacted with, and was reflected by, the moon's rough topography made ultra-precise distance determinations, as was done with artificial satellites, an impossibility. A number of such lunar experiments had been performed in the early 1960's, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in the former Soviet Union, but with little success. A later, more refined concept recommended the deployment of a corner retroreflector package on the lunar surface as a part of one of the unmanned, soft-landing Surveyor missions. This was never brought to fruition, however. It was only in the late 1960's, with the birth of the NASA Apollo project for landing an astronaut safely on the moon, that the concept of laser ranging to a lunar surface corner retroreflector package became a reality. The first deployment of such a package on the lunar surface took place during the Apollo 11 mission in the summer of 1969 and lunar laser ranging (LLR) became a reality [Bender et al., 1973]. Additional retroreflector packages were landed on the lunar surface by NASA during the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions. Two French-built retroreflector packages were soft-landed on the lunar surface by Soviet landers [Barker et al., 1975].

For cryin' out loud, at least do a search for this stuff before making a fool of yourself.

His series on why not go back.

He knows about the constellation project and is planning on making a follow up on this series.

He does some research. kudos to him.

reply to post by FoosM

3. Has any independent space agency supplied the public with pictures or video showing the remains of any Apollo material on the moon? If no, well then see point 2. And if we are stuck on point 2, there is no proof of a manned landing on the moon. Sorry for you.

This is starting to get tedious. Here, try this link:

lmgtfy.com...

reply to post by FoosM




Also as you keep on about the landings being fake how do you feel about people like John Lear and Dick Hoagland saying they DID land but didn't go back because they found things!

Those guys think they landed but I dont agree with anything else they claim.

Originally posted by dragnet53

I like this video of Jarrah's. He does have a point in this series.

At 4.50 -4.52 he claims that the LRO picture shows the lander and surveyor aligned diffrently from the pictures taken by the Astronauts , IN WHAT WAY?

Originally posted by FoosM

Not bad CBS.
Imagine what CBS could make if they had NASA's budget.

This is why alot of people thought they saw the landing,
combine high emotional state with these CBS animations and people are programmed to think what they saw was real subconciously. Over the years the memories blend and they simply say they "Witnessed" the landing on TV.
When in fact it was all just smoke and mirrors.

Foos, I've gota give it to you. I have never seen this before. I had no idea they showed a simulation during the apollo landing. Every second that ticked by, I thought, no ... no .. they didn't really show this. Amazing.

The icing on the cake was the real footage of some guy pretending to be in the module on the moon in the last few seconds. Mind blowing. Thanks.

edit: they even had a big plume coming out of the engine, something we would never. ever see in the 'real' footage.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

Foos, I've gota give it to you. I have never seen this before. I had no idea they showed a simulation during the apollo landing. Every second that ticked by, I thought, no ... no .. they didn't really show this. Amazing.

The icing on the cake was the real footage of some guy pretending to be in the module on the moon in the last few seconds. Mind blowing. Thanks.

edit: they even had a big plume coming out of the engine, something we would never. ever see in the 'real' footage.

You admit you thought animations and puppets were real? You never wondered where the camera was? You couldn't tell the subtle differences between crisp studio enactments and the ghostly. fuzzy live images? Your observational skills and gullibility have been duly noted. No wonder you keep thinking the whole thing was faked.

reply to post by FoosM


Foos, Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey called...your size 26 shoes, and red nose and wig have arrived, and are ready for pick up....

IF you spent half as much time actually RESEARCHING the facts you'd understand what you're seeing...in truth, by showing those videos and photos, you just are destroying your own 'argument' (such as it was to begin with)

Know what? You don't need the shoes, you can turn them in...you're buried so deep, now...it's up to your neck, so you can save on the rest of the costume too....

reply to post by ppk55


You are really a puzzle, ppk...

I had no idea they showed a simulation during the apollo landing. Every second that ticked by, I thought, no ... no .. they didn't really show this. Amazing.

Do you really think (as FoosM so FOOLISHLY seems to believe) that people watching back then were THAT STUPID??

Do you think people didn't realize, when the words "SIMULATION" and "ANIMATION" kept flashing on the screen that they were seeing...simulations and animations???

Which is more interesting, during those last ten exciting minutes or so....sitting and listening to the NASA audio feed, while watching Cronkite sit and listen to the SAME audio feed...or having something they made, WELL IN ADVANCE, in preparation for this event, in order to be visually interesting and relatable??

(Something that, as you so rightly pointed out --- was totally inaccurate, in many ways...not just the 'flames' from the descent engine, as you noticed, but everything else about it was simplified, and designed to be REPRESENTATIVE to give people an idea, not to be an exact depictment)!!

Tell me....WHY do you seem so gob-smacked by THIS instance of simulation graphics to depict something that no camera is available to see, BUT you don't feel the same toward other space events, like satellite deployment simulations, or Space Shuttle entry from orbit, or anything else of that nature?

Truly...the ignorance, it burns.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55

 

You are really a puzzle, ppk...

I had no idea they showed a simulation during the apollo landing. Every second that ticked by, I thought, no ... no .. they didn't really show this. Amazing.

Do you really think (as FoosM so FOOLISHLY seems to believe) that people watching back then were THAT STUPID??

Do you think people didn't realize, when the words "SIMULATION" and "ANIMATION" kept flashing on the screen that they were seeing...simulations and animations???

Which is more interesting, during those last ten exciting minutes or so....sitting and listening to the NASA audio feed, while watching Cronkite sit and listen to the SAME audio feed...or having something they made, WELL IN ADVANCE, in preparation for this event, in order to be visually interesting and relatable??

(Something that, as you so rightly pointed out --- was totally inaccurate, in many ways...not just the 'flames' from the descent engine, as you noticed, but everything else about it was simplified, and designed to be REPRESENTATIVE to give people an idea, not to be an exact depictment)!!

Tell me....WHY do you seem so gob-smacked by THIS instance of simulation graphics to depict something that no camera is available to see, BUT you don't feel the same toward other space events, like satellite deployment simulations, or Space Shuttle entry from orbit, or anything else of that nature?

Truly...the ignorance, it burns.....

The next time you see a warning sign on a hair dryer that says "caution, do not use in shower", or "may be harmful if swallowed" on a box of hammers, no longer do you have to wonder "who the h*ll is stupid enough to try something like that?"

You have now met and interacted with a few of the lowest common denominator of the human race.

Keep this in mind the next time you go out driving or go to vote.....

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

3. Has any independent space agency supplied the public with pictures or video showing the remains of any Apollo material on the moon? If no, well then see point 2. And if we are stuck on point 2, there is no proof of a manned landing on the moon. Sorry for you.

This is starting to get tedious. Here, try this link:

lmgtfy.com...

You are absolutely right, why bring something up that has already been debunked by JW. If you have something to counter his claims with then do so. Peruse his videos before posting, he has covered a lot that you may consider as evidence. And at least offer a REAL counter argument since this thread is about his video series. And not those silly excuses people make like, "I dont like his voice"

No specific order: