It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 136
377
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
As usual, Foos has not been providing links to his citations, making his statements difficult to impossible to verify. The use of the expression "IT" in the NASA contract he cites is internal proof that it post-dates Apollo. This is typical of his dissembling tactics. I only respond to him for the benefit of those readers who have read the first page of this thread and skipped immediately to the last page. He is constantly making statements like "there are so many contradictions,etc." He has never made a single sound point in 138 pages. The newly arrived reader is invited to skip back any number of pages, at random, to confirm this.

To Foos: ATS policy specifically states that all external citations be linked. In future, I will report your violations to the Mods. Thank you for your co-operation.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by DJW001]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Or are you saying that the astronauts were exposed to sunlight at 90º
[edit on 7/10/2010 by Phage]


Hello and yes, here's proof from Apollo 12.


That sun looks a little like a studio light don't you think ?

(there's quite a few more photos like this in the Apollo 12 series)
source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Originally posted by Phage
He assumes that the astronauts were standing stock still and that the solar radiation was striking them with an angle of 90º. False.


The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F. and it would do the same to an astronaut.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]


Regardless of whether they were moving, you can see from the above photo that the entire surface of their PLSS or suit would be hit by the full force of the sun. 'Noon' would have been a welcome reprieve.

So with constant heating to the suit and/or PLSS, the question of how that ice layer remained is dubious. The internal components must have transferred heat via conduction, including the heat exchanger.

edit: There are a good 10 photos like this .. why the hell would you point a camera into the sun and even expect a picture ??

How can they get just about every other picture perfect, even down to macro focusing, yet not know that you can't expect a good picture aiming at the sun.

Remembering, this is the mission that bean blew the TV camera by pointing it at the sun. Yes, he pointed it at the sun, and ruined it. wtf ?

Not to worry, he gave it a hit with his hammer
... no this is not a joke.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
ANOTHER long-debunked image.

ppk55, take 50 lines - "I will NOT pretend I understand photography."


Look, if you just don't 'get' flare, blooming, and effects of reseau plates, why don't you just ask rather than PROVE that your knowledge is at roughly the same levels as FoosMasoo's.

Again, some poeple are unteachable, but is anyone else here unaware of what that image shows?

If you don't understand, or think it looks like a spotlight, just say, and I'll gently elaborate.

But at the moment, it seems that we just have a couple of uninformed trolls, judging by the lack of support. And I am not wasting further time on spamme.. er sockpuppe.. er.. trolls.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

Let's try another earthly example. Mount Everest is so high that non-sherpas require oxygen at its summit. This is because it is so high that much of the atmosphere is below it. With less atmosphere between the mountaineer and the sun, the rays of the sun are more intense. Mountaineers wear sunscreen to protect themselves. Now, with this intensified exposure to the sun, are mountain climbers on Everest hot or cold? Why is there always snow on the summit if the sun beats down on it so hard?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Phage
Or are you saying that the astronauts were exposed to sunlight at 90º
[edit on 7/10/2010 by Phage]


Hello and yes, here's proof from Apollo 12.


That sun looks a little like a studio light don't you think ?

(there's quite a few more photos like this in the Apollo 12 series)
source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...


Originally posted by Phage
He assumes that the astronauts were standing stock still and that the solar radiation was striking them with an angle of 90º. False.


The Sun drives the temperature of the Moon's surface up to 243° F. and it would do the same to an astronaut.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by Phage]


Regardless of whether they were moving, you can see from the above photo that the entire surface of their PLSS or suit would be hit by the full force of the sun. 'Noon' would have been a welcome reprieve.

So with constant heating to the suit and/or PLSS, the question of how that ice layer remained is dubious. The internal components must have transferred heat via conduction, including the heat exchanger.

edit: There are a good 10 photos like this .. why the hell would you point a camera into the sun and even expect a picture ??

How can they get just about every other picture perfect, even down to macro focusing, yet not know that you can't expect a good picture aiming at the sun.

Remembering, this is the mission that bean blew the TV camera by pointing it at the sun. Yes, he pointed it at the sun, and ruined it. wtf ?

Not to worry, he gave it a hit with his hammer
... no this is not a joke.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by ppk55]



Oooo busted!



Is this same Apollo 12 with blue glowing astronauts?

why yes it is




Thor?



Yeah but PPK55 dont you know that the ice didnt melt on the moon cause it was winter time.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You dont have to waste your time here defending Apollo if you know deep in your gut it happened.


Waste my time? See I actually enjoy learning about Apollo. Including the science that goes along with the reading about the missions



Spend your time with more important matters. But I doubt you do believe it yourself, and you want to silence those that are seeking the truth because the truth is painful.


More important matters? Hmm I thought the Missions to the Moon were and still are quite important.


You don't want your worldview disrupted. So stop pretending like you won some argument or debate. You haven't. More information is coming.


:shk: More information, you mean more spam right? I guess its time for the next page.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The guy is a FANNY and I am from the UK so the meaning is not the same as the USA so why would I want to waste money sending him there!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


pk55 I suggest you take time to learn about Thermal Dynamics!!


Hello and yes, here's proof from Apollo 12.

That sun looks a little like a studio light don't you think ?

(there's quite a few more photos like this in the Apollo 12 series)
source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Regardless of whether they were moving, you can see from the above photo that the entire surface of their PLSS or suit would be hit by the full force of the sun. 'Noon' would have been a welcome reprieve.

So with constant heating to the suit and/or PLSS, the question of how that ice layer remained is dubious. The internal components must have transferred heat via conduction, including the heat exchanger.


What internal components? The only thing left to rid the excess heat is to dump the WATER! There isn't some miraculous Phase-change pumps and compressors inside the PLSS, the water cooled garment is the heat exchanger!!! Once circulated through the system the water is shunted to the sublimator and boiled off, thus expelling the heat. That is it!! No more conduction needed. The heat transfer was completed in the liquid cooled garment!

I believe this has been explained in detail man times to you. The above quote shows burden of proof that you still do not understand the system by which Thermal Dynamic conditions the EMU suit is exposed to, is controlled.

PLSS System Overview

Read and look at the design schematics, the design is made with the least amount of parts for a reason! PLSS I don't see a heat exchanger in that diagram, yet I do see the sublimator and the water circulation pump.

Moving on:

edit: There are a good 10 photos like this .. why the hell would you point a camera into the sun and even expect a picture ??
How can they get just about every other picture perfect, even down to macro focusing, yet not know that you can't expect a good picture aiming at the sun. Remembering, this is the mission that bean blew the TV camera by pointing it at the sun. Yes, he pointed it at the sun, and ruined it. wtf ?

Not to worry, he gave it a hit with his hammer ... no this is not a joke.


The vidicon tube inside the TV camera is nothing like a Hasselblad. The coating of the inside of the light sensor cannot be exposed to extreme light levels. Thus when the aperture was pointed at the sun the coating that is needed to collect electrons was burned off and the camera was rendered useless.


116:02:19 Gibson: Stand by, Al.

The Apollo 12 Mission Report contains a technical discussion of the TV camera failure. "(Post-flight) ground tests using an Apollo-type image sensor (secondary electron conducting vidicon tube) exposed the camera system to extreme light levels. The resulting image on a monitor was very similar to that seen after the flight-camera failure. After decontamination and cleaning, the flight camera (which Pete and Al brought back to Earth) was inspected and power was applied. The image, as viewed on a monitor, was the same as that last seen from the lunar surface. The automatic light-level control circuit was (then) disabled by cutting one wire. The camera then reproduced good scene detail in that area of the picture which had previously been black, verifying that the black area of the target was undamaged (as shown in the figure). The finding also proved that the combination of normal automatic light control action and a damaged image-tube target caused the loss of picture. In the process of moving the camera on the lunar surface, a portion of the target in the secondary electron conductivity vidicon must have received a high solar input, either directly from the sun or from some highly reflective surface. (A 1993 examination of the TV record for the ALSJ showed that Al pointed the TV at the Sun while mounting the camera on the tripod). That portion of the target was destroyed, as was evidenced by the white appearance of the upper part of the picture. Training and operational procedures, including the use of a lens cap, are being changed to reduce the possibility of exposing the image sensor to extreme light levels. In addition, design changes are being considered to include automatic protection, such as the use of an image sensor which is less susceptible to damage from intense light levels." Finally, in reviewing the Apollo 12 video tapes in late 1993, I noticed that during the period immediately following the camera failure, Al is faintly visible in the black portion of the image as he moves in front of the camera.


Source



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Every other picture WASN'T perfect you just say that because it sounds better. If your the guy who claimed to be a cinematographer you seem to know S*&T ALL about photography mate!


[edit on 12-7-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

On EVA-1 of Apollo 12 the Sun was from 7.5º to 9.5º degrees above the horizon. Low, yes but not 90º. No, the "entire surface" of the PLSS or suit would not be hit by the sunlight, only the portion facing the Sun. For example when that portion of the panorama (that's why they took pictures straight up Sun, for panoramas) the front of the suit would be exposed to the sun but the back would not. Part of the sides of the suit would be exposed to sunlight at a very low angle of incidence. Then, as I said before, when the astronaut turned a few degrees to take the next picture a different part of the suit would be exposed and a different part would be shadowed. When part of the suit is shadowed it radiates heat, it does not absorb heat. The suits were very well insulated, any heat absorbed by the skin of the suit did not reach the astronaut, Rene is full of crap. It got radiated away whenever that portion of the suit was receiving less sunlight.

You also do not understand the way the cooling system worked, even though it's been explained a couple of times. The formation of ice was a constant process. The ice didn't "remain", that's the point, it sublimated away, taking heat with it. As it sublimated, more water replaced it. That's sort of what the whole discussion is about, whether or not there was enough water to last through an EVA. There was. Even using Rene's assumption that the insulation of the suits did nothing to prevent heat from the surface of the suit penetrating to the astronaut. Yes heat was conducted to the sublimator, that's how it worked.


[edit on 7/12/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Sun Angles just in case this has not been posted.

Intresting thread for sure and I am enjoying following it :-)


[edit on 12/7/2010 by TheDon]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I am going to watch these videos sounds interesting. Lets just see how good this guy really is



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This has got to be the most interesting interview Buzz did. it makes you think and this is called The PUnch heard all around the world by Jarrah White



I can't believe I missed this one.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
As usual, Foos has not been providing links to his citations, making his statements difficult to impossible to verify. The use of the expression "IT" in the NASA contract he cites is internal proof that it post-dates Apollo. This is typical of his dissembling tactics. I only respond to him for the benefit of those readers who have read the first page of this thread and skipped immediately to the last page. He is constantly making statements like "there are so many contradictions,etc." He has never made a single sound point in 138 pages. The newly arrived reader is invited to skip back any number of pages, at random, to confirm this.

To Foos: ATS policy specifically states that all external citations be linked. In future, I will report your violations to the Mods. Thank you for your co-operation.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by DJW001]


LOL

OMG I need to send this thread to Jarrah and maybe he will make his next video about the people who cry no "evidence" that the moon landing was faked.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Yeah, Jarrah just loves attending forums where he has to debate people who know the topic...


He hides, just like the uninformed coward that he is, on Youtube - where he can simply delete anything he doesn't like, and court his little cadre of fellow idiots.

Speaking of forum tactics - how is it that on this thread you barged in, made a couple of incorrect comments, and then.... vanished??


Do you find it difficult to admit your errors?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


LOL you must have typical nerd rage built up inside. Jarrah hide hardly at all. I barged in? How so? Please oh genius tell me how I just "barged" in?

This ought to be interesting...



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL you must have typical nerd rage built up inside. Jarrah hide hardly at all. I barged in? How so? Please oh genius tell me how I just "barged" in?

This ought to be interesting...


Return to the thread... There's a post waiting.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Ok people, i've been reading quite a bit of this thread, seen some moonhoax-believers come and go (leaving unanswered questions in their wake which were apparently too much to handle for them), and i have to say it's been an interesting read so far.

I don't know where some of you find the energy and the patience to try to answer all the 'questions' of the trolls. These numbskulls obviously aren't interested in answers, and therefore any time you invest in them is a priori wasted.

On the other hand it's also a fantastic display/expose of the kind of person it takes to keep believing in the moonhoax fantasy ('theory' would be too much of a compliment). It would be worrying if people like Foosm would actually display some knowledge and insight on this topic.. we'd have to seriously investigate their claims.

But, given the kind of material they come up with, i think we can sit back and relax, knowing that some people just can't be taught anything that contradicts their precious fantasies. And why shouldn't we allow them to revell in it? If they choose to believe Apollo was a hoax, contrary the evidence, then so be it. You've tried your best, the kids can't learn, well let them have their flight of fancy
It's not too big a deal.

So Foosm, PPK, Exhuberant and all the other hoaxies, i hope you keep up your good work. We couldn't ask for better examples of your ilk, so go at it, go all the way, do the best you can



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

OMG I need to send this thread to Jarrah and maybe he will make his next video about the people who cry no "evidence" that the moon landing was faked.


Yeah you should do that
Can't wait to see him make that video.. lol. As if he hasn't made enough of a fool of himself yet. Maybe he can invite some more 'experts' in that video too



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by payt69
Ok people, i've been reading quite a bit of this thread, seen some moonhoax-believers come and go (leaving unanswered questions in their wake which were apparently too much to handle for them), and i have to say it's been an interesting read so far.

I don't know where some of you find the energy and the patience to try to answer all the 'questions' of the trolls. These numbskulls obviously aren't interested in answers, and therefore any time you invest in them is a priori wasted.

On the other hand it's also a fantastic display/expose of the kind of person it takes to keep believing in the moonhoax fantasy ('theory' would be too much of a compliment). It would be worrying if people like Foosm would actually display some knowledge and insight on this topic.. we'd have to seriously investigate their claims.

But, given the kind of material they come up with, i think we can sit back and relax, knowing that some people just can't be taught anything that contradicts their precious fantasies. And why shouldn't we allow them to revell in it? If they choose to believe Apollo was a hoax, contrary the evidence, then so be it. You've tried your best, the kids can't learn, well let them have their flight of fancy
It's not too big a deal.

So Foosm, PPK, Exhuberant and all the other hoaxies, i hope you keep up your good work. We couldn't ask for better examples of your ilk, so go at it, go all the way, do the best you can


For better or worse, the ATS motto is "deny ignorance." Much as I would like to throw my hands up and say "these people are hurting no-one but themselves," the sad fact of the matter is that science, history and critical thinking no longer seem to be taught in the English speaking world. The moon hoaxers scientific illiteracy, historical distortions and complete lack of sound reasoning cannot stand to provide a model for those whose education was as impoverished as their own. One poster here even referred to Jarrah White leading the "good fight," as though his unceasing attacks on reason and common sense were somehow inspiring. What sort of world would we live in if people believed the rantings of some half baked kid rather than the evidence of their own eyes and experience of life?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join