Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Let's see how long FoosM keeps pretending he is 'addressing' stuff...

Only have time to deal with the first still image..

Originally posted by FoosM
First of all that photo is not a debunk.

In *your* opinion.

It shows very accurately how shadows get distorted by a wide angle lens. Interstingly, because it used a relatively nearby artificial light source, the shadow angles will be LESS than those from the parallel rays of the Sun... FoosM missed that important point (because it doesn't help his cause), but instead wishes to quibble over perfect accuracy.

Why, well that rock, in question, is too far from his head and is naturally pointing to the vanishing point

WHAT????? He now claims that the rock is pointing in the wrong direction? Does he not realise that 'vanishing points' are NOT the issue here? Clearly FoosM has no understanding of the issue, which is PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION, not whether things (rocks or shadows) are heading towards vanishing points.

So bring that rock closer then we can talk.

If ANYONE agrees with this point, I'll oblige. But I don't think anyone else has this level of ignorance.

Furthermore, looking closely at NASA's photo, I had found other issues
...
Rocks close to the head that simply refuse to follow the rules.
I mean a shadow going down? Whats that all about?

First up, the Sun was behind and a little to the RIGHT of the 'centreline' along which the image was captured. Agreed?
So items on the right of centre will throw *some* of their shadow to the LEFT. Agreed?
What parts of that shadow then show in the image depends solely on the shape of the rock, and the 'micro'-terrain upon which the shadow falls. Agreed?

Now, let's look at the rock/rock shadow in question, just above his helmet shadow. Here's a link to the image, so anyone with a brain can follow along:
history.nasa.gov...
Note the shape of the rock (at 1102,224), and how you can just see the shaodw peeping out UNDER the left-hand edge of the rock - the edge OBVIOUSLY curves up and out towards the left. In other words, you are seeing the shadow, which is very obviously being cast almost directly behind the rock (just as it should be, given the rock's position in frame).
============= ADDED - here's an image showing the rock shape, and the approximate shadow directions. I've adjusted the grey-level (to 0.6 in Gimp, if anyone wants to check) to try to show the rock shapes a little better, and I've roughly outlined the rock in question.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2100ce4afb56.jpg[/atsimg]
=============
WE GET TO SEE THE SHADOW BECAUSE THE ROCK OBVIOUSLY has an 'undercut'. It is perfectly obvious, as is the fact that FoosM's arrows are simply his little joke. They represent NOTHING of value whatsoever., and are most assuredly nowhere near where the shadows are being cast.

Anyone else not understand that? I find it astonishing that someone could misinterpret an image this badly. And we haven't even attempted to address what would have happened to the rest of the shadows in that image, if FoosM's claim about other light sources was in any way valid.


I'll call back in later to discuss why FoosM DELIBERATELY CHANGES HIS 'QUOTES'. Clearly, being in quotation marks means NOTHING when it comes from FoosM.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I thought I did, but you can even see it done in 2001.

No you can't. Kubrick only used front projection for the daylight scenes on Earth.

Ill say it again, watch 2001, and I do mean the 'dawn of man' scenes.

Edit to add: Now speed up the "twinkle toes" clip and explain why the sample bag on the PLSS is flapping so unnaturally fast. It's the perfect example of the mass versus weight issue that so many of us have brought up, and why footage taken on the Moon looks so "unnatural!"

Sped up by how much?

reply to post by FoosM

Ill say it again, watch 2001, and I do mean the 'dawn of man' scenes.

Excellent suggestion, thanks! (Three day weekend!)

Sped up by how much?

By whatever degree you feel necessary to make the falling tool at the end of the clip look like it was filmed on Earth.

Edit to fix sloppy typing.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by DJW001]

Ooops. Wrong button!
Arbitrary second line.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

WHAT????? He now claims that the rock is pointing in the wrong direction? Does he not realise that 'vanishing points' are NOT the issue here? Clearly FoosM has no understanding of the issue, which is PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION, not whether things (rocks or shadows) are heading towards vanishing points.

============= ADDED - here's an image showing the rock shape, and the approximate shadow directions. I've adjusted the grey-level (to 0.6 in Gimp, if anyone wants to check) to try to show the rock shapes a little better, and I've roughly outlined the rock in question.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2100ce4afb56.jpg[/atsimg]
=============
WE GET TO SEE THE SHADOW BECAUSE THE ROCK OBVIOUSLY has an 'undercut'. It is perfectly obvious, as is the fact that FoosM's arrows are simply his little joke. They represent NOTHING of value whatsoever., and are most assuredly nowhere near where the shadows are being cast.

Anyone else not understand that? I find it astonishing that someone could misinterpret an image this badly. And we haven't even attempted to address what would have happened to the rest of the shadows in that image, if FoosM's claim about other light sources was in any way valid.

Come on CHRLZ drawing arrows contrary to where the shadow is going isnt going to make the photo work any better.

Something had to cast those shadows, the shadows on the right hand of the astro's head is not coming from the small rocks below them but next to them on the right.
Which means light would have to come from the right side, or the lens would have to be seriously distorted, which its not.

And the rock's shadow above his head, undercut or not, is below the rock.
Which means light would have to come from the opposite direction.
Its that clear. It is what it is. Sorry.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74c4805f8883.jpg[/atsimg]

And then you got this strange small footprint (circled).
I couldnt find any other footprints near it.
Can anyone find any other footprints?
Or disturbed soil caused by walking?
These astros tended to shuffle, or bunny hop, so you would expect to see
many prints within close proximity of each other.
I mean, there weren't any one legged astronauts on the moon were there?
So there must be prints there but I just dont see them.
Another point, looking at the print, look which way the shadows are going.
Aren't they like going.... nah.

CHRLZ you got any answers?
You think those prints are hidden behind something?


*Mod Edit: Just resized the foot-print pic so it fits the page.



[edit on 6-7-2010 by alien]

Onto the next 'foosm'.. Perhaps that term should be used to indicate any claim that is not properly researched..?

Originally posted by FoosM

Quoting Chrlz
In it, amongst other 'nothing', you will note that I asked FoosM to CITE several quotes. He has refused to do so, which is clearly against the spirit of the forum and may indicate that he is providing FALSE quotes. I hope the mod's are watching this.

Gee CHRLZ I thought you had studied Apollo six ways to Sunday.

That's a pretty snide remark. The Apollo project is huge. I do know it pretty well, but for a person to simply assume that I can immediately find anything, simply indicates your true agenda. You DON'T want people to find things, because when they do, they find that you have either:
- made it up
- misquoted (as in this case)
- quoted out of context (as in just about one you have ever presented)

You really dont know where I got those quotes?

I know where the REAL quotes are. BUT HERE WAS YOUR QUOTE:

If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 ... At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:
"This was the best simulation we ever had."

I've bolded the important bits.

First of all, it did NOT happen 'at the end'. It was in the middle of an EVA.
SO YOU GOT THAT WRONG.

Second, that stuff you have in quotes is NOT what was said. He said:
"It's the best sim we've had" NOT
"This was the best simulation we ever had."
SO YOU GOT THE QUOTE WRONG!!!
Anyone trying to find that 'quote' would have had a struggle - was that deliberate? Nah, of course not.

Finally, if you read the surrounding transcript (it can be found here but you'll need to scroll down to 131:51:09) the context clearly shows he was referring to the very good comm's quality they were getting - almost as good as the simulations, but for the delay..
SO YOU ALSO TRIED TO MISLEAD.

So, in summary:
Your quote was FALSE, and embellished.
You said it was at the end of the mission - that was false.
You quoted out of context.

3 strikes. And you wonder why folks ask you to cite your stuff??

I'm sorry FoosM, but you are not going to get away with this crap here. You can take your foosm's elsewhere, or wear the exposure at ATS as a disinformant with a desire to mislead.. Your choice.

I'll be back with more, and it will get worse if you continue.

Be HONEST with your quotes in future, and you won't get in trouble.

ADDED:
PS - FoosM strikes again with another screwed up image that breaks ATS page formatting. I've explained the shadow adequately - if anyone else disputes it, let me know.

As for the footprint, there is very little image contrast in that area of the image, and if the surface was harder in other areas, the footprints will not have left the sharp edges necesary to show up. It's just another grasp at straws.

You'll note how he does this to avoid addressing the errors and lies posted previously.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
LTRU, I am impressed by your response - and your acknowledgement that the Mir thing was a porthole, was great. I hope what follows will continue in that vein.

First up, let me apologise - my posting was quite harsh, and judging by your two posts here, I was mistaken. I'm sorry.

But I would ask you to consider that the posting of unresearched claims followed by either the complete refusal to acknowledge the flaws in the claim, or the disappearance of the original poster, are the tactics of choice for the 'virulent' apollo denier - in particular those pushing their youtube sites. Witness Jarrah White - who does this all the time, and the OP of the thread, Wwu777 aka Vinstonas Wu, who runs a 'skeptics' website that is a complete and utter sham.

Thank you C., I really appreciate what you said and sincerely thank you for bringing your hospitality.

In regards to the pic you have posted. I concede. It is evident in the photo that therwe is an indentation before him. The bowl type feature in the soil, for with which the rocks are placed on the edges cause otherwise linear shadows to bend towards one another. The shadows aren't actually bending towards one another, rather it is the gradient line falling at an angle giving the appearance of an "arc".

In order for there to be multiple light sources there must be multiple shadows, not divergent ones.

While I do admit to the "shadow" anomaly originally making me take note. I have since thrown this out as it is invalid. Logic requires multiple shadows for multiple lights.

I get very very sick of seeing the same old stuff recycled, and also of seeing stuff posted where the claimant clearly hasn't a clue about what they are talking about, and hasn't bothered to do even the most basic investigation. Hence my anger at what I perceived to be more of the same...

Like I said, I could do something similar, but really.. this is Photography - Perspective of Wide Angle Lenses 101... Basic stuff....

I could not agree with you more. I realize that new people come in every day, and that some are slow to research things sufficiently, myself included. Sometimes you end up in a thread thinking you were just going to drop a comment only to find yourself in it a Hundred and something pages later...lol
These are the kind of threads that make me wonder "what the hell are we doing this for?"

I am a Man. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and will be the first one to admit it when I am.

Kudos to you! I try to do the same.

I don't rub things in peoples faces, it's in humane.

That's a very fair criticism of me - but I only do that when the tone of the converstaion indicates it is being done deliberately/tauntingly (eg your $75 bet thing..) or repeatedly (witness FoosM..)

I've done as much rubbing as anyone, but I wish I could take back everyone I did. Wishes don't accomplish anything so I will change, always here-forward. Hold me to that

I think the problem with this debate is not the evidence, which abounds from many different angles of the mission and so forth. The first problem is knowledge of the avg. citizen who is not linked in with these fields. I know that because I am one. Education is needed as things are not always what they appear.

And that is indeed the key - you are very perceptive! The Apollo mission was way ahead of its time in many ways. It was driven by an intense desire to beat the Russkis to the moon, some risks were taken, and in some ways they were lucky. Eg, the incredible Saturn V rocket was an unbelievable masterpiece of engineering that worked in a way that no similar rocket ever has, and the whole project was blessed with some remarkable engineering and a little blind luck.. Apollo 1 was a disaster, but in a way it caused an intense re-consideration of the methodologies used in the project, along with an unprecedented openness, resulting in a remarkable safety record from then on.

Now if you add all that up - a complex project, in a unique and unusual environment (both physically and politically), using science and techniques never before (or since) used - and mostly unfamiliar to Joe Average..

Short answer: I disagree with the reasons why the space race began and won't go into them here, simply because the loop is too long to explain and would take us through to many seemingly unrelated events before the connections could be made. Hopefully I will be able to put them down in a post as I'd like to hear what you might think.

.. YOU HAVE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR HOAX CLAIMANTS TO MAKE A BUCK, or just pretend to be heroes.

All they have to do is look for anything unusual.. and it's ALL unusual!! So of course there will be reams of stuff that will be difficult to understand and explain... Then you can add on jokes made by the astronauts, even people's lack of experience with perspective or photographic concepts... Or silly pre-conceptions, like that a vehicle designed to operate in 1/6 gravity and a vacuum should look 'pretty' or like it would appear in science fiction movies... On and on it goes - endless opportunities for snake-oilers and the ill-informed.

I agree with you in whole on the above, but would caution not to throw out the baby with the bathwater". Someone believing in, even a silly pre-conceived idea(ex. Santa Clause) does not mean they are the ones selling it, only they were convinced to buy it in ignorance or by emotion or by threat. When they begin selling it themselves...."Release the hounds". When they question, not looking to be right, but looking to find right, or looking to preach right and not sell it they have no fault before me.

I'm curious - were you alive and sentient then?

I know what you are saying, but this event was extraordinary. I wasn't the only one glued to the TV, reading the articles, listening to the radio broadcasts, watching and doing my best to understand the engineering. It was a MARVELLOUS time - everyone was watching in awe and admiration.

Missed the boat by 5 years, I wish i would of been alive. I did get my MTV though. I watched that Saturn V blast off every hour on the hour...."Who can it be knocking at my door...go away, don't come round here no more"..."best off if you stay outside, don't come in, I'll only run and hide"....Men At Work (the first band I ever saw)

With this event, 3 billion souls came to the knowledge at once, unprecedented in the known annuls of our current history

Yes, unique in that sense. But how else could it have unfolded?

It couldn't of any other way, but it still leaves a gap in which people will fill with doubt having not been live witnesses.

continued...and CHRLZ...thank you

Peace

While we are waiting for CHRLZ to come up with answers to those Apollo 14 issues I brought up earlier, let me bring up some other Apollo 14 issues that I cant seem to wrap my mind around.

Ok, well we know one lunar day is like 29 days, thats why it looks like the moon always faces one direction I was told. And from what I understand Apollo 14 had 2 EVAs a day apart from each other...

I was just thinking did those Astros bring books with them on those long stays on the moon? I mean I would go crazy being in a cramped space smaller than a jail cell on a desolate moon waiting for something to go wrong with the LM or even the CM. Having to hold my nose, or maybe even don my helmet while my partner relieved himself... how did they handle that? How did they stay in a good mood? And where did the human waste go? Was it jettisoned on the lunar surface?

Human waste has bedeviled NASA engineers from the get-go. Alan Shepard's first 15-minute suborbital flight was so short that no one thought to install a urine receptacle in his space suit. At T-minus 15 minutes, an electrical problem caused an 86-minute delay on the launchpad. Shepard's bladder soon reached the bursting point, and he radioed the first-ever "Houston, we have a problem" message. After some deliberation, mission control had an answer: "Do it in the suit."

Gemini and Apollo astronauts wore plastic bags taped to their buttocks. After defecation, the crew member was required to seal the bag and knead it, mixing in a liquid-bactericide to provide the desired degree of "feces stabilization." The first men to walk on the moon stepped onto the lunar surface wearing astrodiapers - undershorts layered with absorbent material. Which may explain all the jumping up and down.

Oh geez, I will never watch those videos the same again...

Did they have TV? Why couldnt they have TV? I mean we got live signals from the moon, couldnt that work the other way around?

Well back to the other stuff....

Wait, before I do that, something else I was wondering about.
You know how people say that the Astronauts had like tons of practice (even though in Apollo 11 they stated they got their practice cameras only like a few weeks before launch), where are those photos? I mean, I want to see how well they took photos here on Earth, maybe we can find anomolies there too
But seriously, do those photos exist from any mission?

Well back to the... oh wait CHRLZ has some things he wants to say

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Onto the next 'foosm'.. Perhaps that term should be used to indicate any claim that is not properly researched..?

Originally posted by FoosM

Quoting Chrlz
In it, amongst other 'nothing', you will note that I asked FoosM to CITE several quotes. He has refused to do so, which is clearly against the spirit of the forum and may indicate that he is providing FALSE quotes. I hope the mod's are watching this.

Gee CHRLZ I thought you had studied Apollo six ways to Sunday.

That's a pretty snide remark. The Apollo project is huge. I do know it pretty well, but for a person to simply assume that I can immediately find anything, simply indicates your true agenda. You DON'T want people to find things, because when they do, they find that you have either:
- made it up
- misquoted (as in this case)
- quoted out of context (as in just about one you have ever presented)

You really dont know where I got those quotes?

I know where the REAL quotes are. BUT HERE WAS YOUR QUOTE:

If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 ... At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:
"This was the best simulation we ever had."

I've bolded the important bits.

First of all, it did NOT happen 'at the end'. It was in the middle of an EVA.
SO YOU GOT THAT WRONG.

Second, that stuff you have in quotes is NOT what was said. He said:
"It's the best sim we've had" NOT
"This was the best simulation we ever had."
SO YOU GOT THE QUOTE WRONG!!!
Anyone trying to find that 'quote' would have had a struggle - was that deliberate? Nah, of course not.

Finally, if you read the surrounding transcript (it can be found here but you'll need to scroll down to 131:51:09) the context clearly shows he was referring to the very good comm's quality they were getting - almost as good as the simulations, but for the delay..
SO YOU ALSO TRIED TO MISLEAD.

So, in summary:
Your quote was FALSE, and embellished.
You said it was at the end of the mission - that was false.
You quoted out of context.

I get his feeling CHRLZ thinks I misquoted some text.
But as you astute readers probably already know, this is not the case.

"If one looks through the many 100 s of pages of radio transcript of Apollo 12 so one gets the feeling having been at a volleyball game on Saturday afternoon and not having been witness of heavy steps of the human beings on a foreign and deadly orb."

At the end Houston said after 131 hours and 51 minutes mission time:

"This was the best simulation we ever had." And nobody laughed...

(Wisnewski, p.274-275)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thats what I wrote. Now it may not be the prettiest job in sourcing, but anyone can see its a statement made by Wisnewski, not only that, but CHRLZ pointed it out earlier. So where are you getting confused CHRLZ? Your taking my quote of a quote out of context. Your confusing our readers CHRLZ.

Another thing, 'AT THE END' doesn't mean at the end of the entire mission CHRLZ, thats how your reading it. You dont think Wisnewski knows how long the entire mission was? Thats why he wrote "after 131 hours and 51 minutes" so anyone with access to the journal could find it. You found it, was it that hard? Not everything is a conspiracy CHRLZ.

You see, the post was about the big picture (which CHRLZ missed I guess.) The fact that so many things were referenced as fiction, fake, ie: "simulation" or "model" etc.
Thats all, and you can't deny that can you CHRLZ? Thats why I call them "clues".

Now I ran out of space for my next installment...

reply to post by FoosM


Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, well we know one lunar day is like 29 days, thats why it looks like the moon always faces one direction I was told. And from what I understand Apollo 14 had 2 EVAs a day apart from each other...

The two EVA's were two Earth days apart from one another. Well more like 17 - 18 hours apart. No mission ever spent a full Lunar day on the Moon.

Wait, before I do that, something else I was wondering about.
You know how people say that the Astronauts had like tons of practice (even though in Apollo 11 they stated they got their practice cameras only like a few weeks before launch), where are those photos? I mean, I want to see how well they took photos here on Earth, maybe we can find anomolies there too

But seriously, do those photos exist from any mission?

Only a few weeks of practice? Are you sure about that? I ask because I have a photo here taken on Feb 24, 1969, about 5 months before they went to the Moon. What's that in Neil's hand?

I doubt the training photos were kept. They wouldn't serve any purpose other than for reviewing ones own photography. Have you ever tried taking photos without looking through the view finder or LCD screen? It's really not that difficult. I suggest you give it a try. Preferably with a camera that has manual controls. No auto focus or auto exposure.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Good! Because I will need your help to figure something out. But Ill probably post that tomorrow since I got some deadlines to meet.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, well we know one lunar day is like 29 days, thats why it looks like the moon always faces one direction I was told. And from what I understand Apollo 14 had 2 EVAs a day apart from each other...

The two EVA's were two Earth days apart from one another. Well more like 17 - 18 hours apart. No mission ever spent a full Lunar day on the Moon.

Wait, before I do that, something else I was wondering about.
You know how people say that the Astronauts had like tons of practice (even though in Apollo 11 they stated they got their practice cameras only like a few weeks before launch), where are those photos? I mean, I want to see how well they took photos here on Earth, maybe we can find anomolies there too

But seriously, do those photos exist from any mission?

Only a few weeks of practice? Are you sure about that? I ask because I have a photo here taken on Feb 24, 1969, about 5 months before they went to the Moon. What's that in Neil's hand?

I doubt the training photos were kept. They wouldn't serve any purpose other than for reviewing ones own photography. Have you ever tried taking photos without looking through the view finder or LCD screen? It's really not that difficult. I suggest you give it a try. Preferably with a camera that has manual controls. No auto focus or auto exposure.

Nice find... wonder where his photos are...
Tell you the truth, Niel gots a gut there, didnt expect that. I expected my astronauts to be slim and trim. But anyway, yeah I have taken photos without viewfinder, but it wasnt like part of my training. I wasnt going to be graded on the quality of the shot of course. These guys were about to record history, I think their situation would be a bit different. And regarding the time spent with their equipment, that was discussed on this thread several pages back. I quoted sections of the debrief were it was discussed. It said something like they got their practice equipment like two weeks before the mission (now im going from memory so ease off any attacks). Anyway, maybe the clue is- "their own" equipment for home use, and not necessarily that they had no practice whatsoever. So what Im saying is, that camera might not be his.

OK, I have now completely revised my opinion of you, LTRU. Great post, and I agree with your sentiments and approach..! A few points:

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
..Thank you C., I really appreciate what you said and sincerely thank you for bringing your hospitality. In regards to the pic you have posted. I concede. It is evident in the photo that therwe is an indentation before him. The bowl type feature in the soil, for with which the rocks are placed on the edges cause otherwise linear shadows to bend towards one another. The shadows aren't actually bending towards one another, rather it is the gradient line falling at an angle giving the appearance of an "arc".

And thank you - such concessions are very worthwhile!
And while the lay of the land can contribute to the shadow bending, in this case I believe it is mainly perspective distortion that causes the bending, as shown in this randomly grabbed image:

The lens used for the Apollo image is not that extreme, and of course the effect is 'backwards, but it's the same bending effect being seen.

In order for there to be multiple light sources there must be multiple shadows, not divergent ones.

This is a very important point that also debunks the claim - and there is one more - penumbra. That slight fuzzy effect you can see around the shadow of the astronaut's head is EXACTLY the right amount for a sun-sized light source, at infinite (effectively) distance. If it was a nearby light source, it would have to be TINY to give that penumbral effect, and could not possibly throw out enough light. For anything of sufficent size to provide that level of illumination, even if it was a few hundred metres away, the shadows would have VERY different edges.

I realize that new people come in every day, and that some are slow to research things sufficiently, myself included. Sometimes you end up in a thread thinking you were just going to drop a comment only to find yourself in it a Hundred and something pages later...lol
These are the kind of threads that make me wonder "what the hell are we doing this for?"

I absolutely agree, and I think this deserves a thread of its own. I don't know what the answer is. I DO know that it is a contributing factor to the spread of lunacy (pun intended) that the Interweb allows... Look at any 'wacky' thread, and if all you read is the first page, with ill-informed readers patting the OP and themselves on the back, you would think that every claim was 100% true. And the sad fact is that people can use this effect to either pretend they are heroic researchers, or to fleece money of the gullible, even if it is only via a Youtube ad-commission program..

Ah well, new one born every minute, i guess..

I've done as much rubbing as anyone, but I wish I could take back everyone I did. Wishes don't accomplish anything so I will change, always here-forward. Hold me to that

Got enough problems keeping my own comments in check... I also regret my comments at times (eg the ones I directed your way!), but not all of them...

Short answer: I disagree with the reasons why the space race began and won't go into them here, simply because the loop is too long to explain and would take us through to many seemingly unrelated events before the connections could be made. Hopefully I will be able to put them down in a post as I'd like to hear what you might think.

I'd be most interested - you express yourself well, and though I may not agree, I love a good debate with an intelligent opponent!

I agree with you in whole on the above, but would caution not to throw out the baby with the bathwater".

True enough. However, the Apollo program has an absolutely enormous amount of documentation - more than any other project in mankind's history, I would suggest. And it all adds up - perfectly. To hoax such a project, if you apply the same rigorous demands on proof of *that*, is simply beyond possibility. There are MANY, MANY things that would be so difficult, if not completely impossible to hoax, it is simply beyond any reasonable consideration. And frankly, not even ONE of the denier claims stands up to sctrutiny - if you feel there is some smoking gun that is out there, let me know.

Men At Work (the first band I ever saw)

MEN AT WORK??!!! MAAAAA_AAATE!!! Now you are talking - a man with obvious good taste. I'm a total fan of MAW, and have followed Colin Hay's work with great interest too - I'm just about to put on his Hills and Valleys CD - he has some great, if a little quirky, solo albums... er.. I digress...


Anyway, great pleasure to meet you, LTRU. Look forward to that space race post!

Originally posted by FoosM
While we are waiting for CHRLZ to come up with answers to those Apollo 14 issues I brought up earlier, let me bring up some other Apollo 14 issues that I cant seem to wrap my mind around.

You'll be waiting a while. Indeed, you'll be waiting until anyone else with debating skills picks up your 'issues' and runs with them. I'm finished with you. Some people are completely unteachable, and I do not engage with people who repeatedly and deliberately falsify and mislead.

Further, I note you tried to escape from your FALSE quote by blaming the proven liar Wisnewski. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PRESENTED IT AS A NASA QUOTE. YOU MISLED THE FORUM. Well, it serves you right. Lie with liars...

The only conclusion that can be drawn from that dismal effort is that Wisnewski falsifies his quotes, and you are ignorant enough to use him as a source. Why can't you find your quotes for yourself? - you were bragging about that a few posts back. Delicious irony.

You walked right into that one. Enjoy...

And keep waitin'.. Maybe someone will come along who can help you present your case coherently...

Anyone?

reply to post by CHRLZ

Anyone?

I'm not getting this either.

You claim that Foosm falsified (or embellished) his quote. I'm not seeing it.

He wrote:

"It's the best sim we've had.

and

"This was the best simulation we ever had."

You wrote:

"This was the best simulation we ever had."

What exactly is the big deal here? The first quote is not exact, but he hasn't changed the meaning at all. Perhaps if he was paraphrasing, he shouldn't have used quotation marks. However, this isn't a doctoral thesis, it's simply a discussion board. You're acting as if his slight misquote completely invalidates his point. It doesn't.

You're obviously a smart guy Chrisz. I starred many of your posts in this thread. But frankly, your constant personal attacks against Foosm's intelligence are getting quite tiresome to read. (You might want to review your posts if you doubt this.)

As he pointed out to you, you are completely missing his point. His point is that the astronauts made jokes that made the mission appear to be false.

PS: I'm on "your side", that is I believe that we went to the moon.


[edit on 6/7/10 by ConspiracyNut23]

It's really quite simple, CN.

FoosM first of all REFUSED to cite the quote, and then made a song and dance implying how stupid we were for not knowing where it came from.

WE COULDN'T FIND IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T A QUOTE. The key words had been changed, and an adjective added, so there was no chance you could find those words, except of course at Wisnewski's site.

That's not appropriate, and it's just stupid game-playing. He's done it before, and I'm heartily sick of it.

Also, the quote is clearly amidst a long conversation about comm's quality, and it is NOT at the end of the mission, as he claimed.

I'm also annoyed by the way FoosM refuses to engage in any discussion of the flaws in his claims, but instead immediately jumps to a 'new', but previously debunked claim. I understand it may seem like a personal attack, but like I said, I'm heartily sick of this type of tactic.

If anyone wants to take up his 'issues' in a reasonable fashion, I'll happily engage with them. But I'm through with him.

reply to post by CHRLZ

The key words had been changed, and an adjective added, so there was no chance you could find those words, except of course at Wisnewski's site.

Ah ok! I get that.

Don't get me wrong, you have made excellent contributions to this thread. Your explanation of radiation was very educational to non-scientific types such as myself. Remember, there are probably a fair amount of lurkers who have learned a lot from you, as I have. So don't get too discouraged and thanks. I can see how Foosm can try your patience.

I imagine this thread would be quite hard to mod, as insightful, intelligent conversations are intertwined with personal attacks.

[edit on 6/7/10 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Ah ok! I get that.
Don't get me wrong, you have made excellent contributions to this thread. Your explanation of radiation was very educational to non-scientific types such as myself. Remember, there are probably a fair amount of lurkers who have learned a lot from you, as I have. So don't get too discouraged and thanks. I can see how Foosm can try your patience.
I imagine this thread would be quite hard to mod, as insightful, intelligent conversations are intertwined with personal attacks.

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate your comments and accept the criticism.

But hey, I haven't finished the radiation yet by a long shot - you have much to endure...

If it's any consolation, I will provide an executive summary at the end with links back to all the pieces. So you can ignore all the lengthy scattered novellas and wait till the end, if you like.

I've got one more to flesh out (it's half done, but I'm busy) to finish off the James Van Allen 'story', and then will move on to the guts of the issue - where Apollo went, how much radiation they went through, and how protected (or not) they were. That will address not only the flight, but also the surface stays and eva's, and all types of radiation.

It is my hope that future radiation 'enthusiasts' might be pointed to the coverage here, rather than it being fragmented and dragged out in piecemeal fashion all the time.

It's interesting that no-one seems very interested in it now, even though for some it started out being their favorite.. They might know what is coming...

[edit on 6-7-2010 by CHRLZ]

Hello, I have a quick question about the PLSS (the backpack) and how it supposedly cooled them.

from NASA:

Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat.

Ok, so it's ice that cools the water that cools the astronauts. Cool.

What I'm wondering is, how that ice was generated on a daily basis?

Also, from NASA below, it mentions a layer of ice is formed and how the water freezes.

What keeps this ice layer from melting after a few minutes ? How does the water freeze?

With the sun hitting their PLSS's, temperatures were very high. If their heat exchangers were in shadow and exposed, it's a possibility, but in direct sun and not directly exposed ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d78b94368c7.jpg[/atsimg]

sources:
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17LifeSpprtBrief002.pdf
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I have a quick question about the PLSS (the backpack) and how it supposedly cooled them.

from NASA:

Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat.

Ok, so it's ice that cools the water that cools the astronauts. Cool.

What I'm wondering is, how that ice was generated on a daily basis?

Also, from NASA below, it mentions a layer of ice is formed and how the water freezes.

What keeps this ice layer from melting after a few minutes ? How does the water freeze?

With the sun hitting their PLSS's, temperatures were very high. If their heat exchangers were in shadow and exposed, it's a possibility, but in direct sun and not directly exposed ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d78b94368c7.jpg[/atsimg]

sources:
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17LifeSpprtBrief002.pdf
history.nasa.gov...

The feedwater, now hot from the heat exchanger, was then slowly feed through the porous nickel plates of the sublimator and out into the vacuum of space. This drop in pressure would also lead to a drop in temperature, resulting in the water freezing into ice on the outside of the sublimator before subliming into a gas and leaking from the backpack through an exhaust.

lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

Essentially, the vacuum of space froze the water of the system into ice. Since the heat exchanger was inside the PLSS it was not directly exposed to solar rays.