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: 227
377
<< 224  225  226    228  229  230 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Even the most basic of vision mixers has a preview function before you hit the 'take' button.
You see what you're about to 'take' on a monitor to the left of what is going live. This is basic knowledge.

If you had waited all this time to see a capsule coming down from the sky, then everyone announced it was there, why would you cut to a close up of the ocean ?


In 1970? On location? Can you prove that? In any event, if it was staged, why did they cut to the ocean? If it was live, the director might not know which camera had the best shot from moment to moment... if it was staged, each shot would be plotted. AGAIN: IF IT WAS STAGED WHY CUT AWAY TO THE OCEAN?




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 




In 1970? On a hastily-arranged news media jaunt, on a Navy ship?? To cover breaking news????

And, you think they'd do everything right, in "preview" before switching views? Ever watched the David Letterman show? Even today, they make mistakes....and this after REHEARSING the darn thing!!! (I mean, IF you can see the "live taping", NOT the edited version, for broadcast.....you know, when you have certain TV satellite feeds available to you....)

Even IF it wasn't a switching error....I can think of a reason to cut to a view of the ocean....

The type of surface conditions on the sea are important when considering the splashdown and recovery danger levels...and may have been of concern to the newspeople...as part of the story.


edit on 19 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: redactions



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Attention Please


Due to the members' inability to discuss this topic with civility, the staff is seriously considering permanent closure of this thread.

This is a FINAL request to the members to please stick to the topic and post with decorum.

Please be advised that any further discussion in a less than civil manner will result in thread closure.


Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now think about that for a second.
The Capsule was not steerable.
Coming in from space like a meteorite.


The concept of trajectory prediction was nothing new in the 1960's. Actually a group of MIT thinkers were working for the DoD, doing orbital mechanics equations for a flight to Mars, since 1958.

Charles Stark Draper

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory

The entire Apollo Missions where based upon predictions: IE if this criteria is met, I can expect this to happen.

Apollo Trajectory Outline [prediction overview]

These guys at MIT are real prodigy's, some with multiple disciplines under their belts. Actually doing the calculations, then building the part that will make it all happen.

Amazing that people are innovative and able to overcome obstacles.

There is many flight philosophies that make up trajectories. I suggest you actually take the time to READ about these concepts. It is always good to read about, the things you claim to be false.
edit on 19-10-2010 by theability because: wording



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


these numbers to which you refer are not able to be accurately processed
because the only available numbers are from reports
and blueprints

for some reason the actual parts to the Saturn V rocket were
ummmm
i don't know and neither does NASA

they disappeared or were disposed or something along those lines
so it is impossible to have an independent validation
of any numbers released by the more than dubious NASA

so by constantly asking me to provide numbers
that are only put out by the same body that i am questioning
you are engaging in two logical fallacies

1)appeal to authority
2)begging the question or circular reasoning

this is simple logic
this has nothing to do with data
the process of reasoning starts waaaaayyyyyy before the data
it is all about the idea of being able to prove a premise

trying to tell me that NASA's Saturn V had enough fuel and went to the moon because NASA's numbers and footage say so is
circular reasoning



edit on 10/19/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


as with all of the numbers put out concerning the Saturn V Rocket

it is all conjecture based upon theoretical models

the hallmark of any applicable theory is repetition
repetition is the hallmark of any applicable theory

the only information that we have are numbers on paper and footage
and that is all
no one else has gone to the moon
NASA can't even produce the parts to the Saturn Rocket if they wanted to produce them

this is no different than wormholes and time travel

until an independent investigatory body can validate and repeat the same feat
then what happened was a super lucky anomaly

if it even actually happened

the radiation exposure on the surface of the moon would kill or seriously maim our best boys
and we did not know and we still do not know where the high neutron radiation on the surface of the moon is located
the only readouts put out by the LRO are averages over an extended period of time

and to that I wholly agree with Phage that averages do not account for much

this thread is at a stalemate
and nothing new is to be learned



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Duly noted. Everyone step back, take a deep breath and treat each other the way we expect to be treated ourselves. Let's try to limit our discussion to facts and figures, not opinions. And if someone does say something you find inflammatory, ignore them!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



as with all of the numbers put out concerning the Saturn V Rocket

it is all conjecture based upon theoretical models


Ok, again the documents exist showing the prediction of event and Saturn V flights. These flights are real events. I suggest you get the following and read them.

Source Page

Apollo 5-17 Apollo Saturn V FlightEv.pdf

These outline the flight of each booster system and performance of the booster compared to the predictions before hand.


the hallmark of any applicable theory is repetition
repetition is the hallmark of any applicable theory


Your are absolutely right. They reproduced the results on many flights and learned much needed education and applied it to future flights.


the only information that we have are numbers on paper and footage
and that is all
no one else has gone to the moon
NASA can't even produce the parts to the Saturn Rocket if they wanted to produce them
The cool thing about physics is that anyone can check you work and call NO JOY if it was falsified.


this is no different than wormholes and time travel

until an independent investigatory body can validate and repeat the same feat
then what happened was a super lucky anomaly
what?


if it even actually happened
Where is the complete thought?



the radiation exposure on the surface of the moon would kill or seriously maim our best boys
and we did not know and we still do not know where the high neutron radiation on the surface of the moon is located
the only readouts put out by the LRO are averages over an extended period of time

and to that I wholly agree with Phage that averages do not account for much

this thread is at a stalemate
and nothing new is to be learned


I suggest reading all the documents on this page here, the PDFs

Apollo Documentation

There are some 20-30 Apollo PDFs that cover a good amount of the Apollo Project and is a nice start to discipline yourself about Apollo.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by WWu777
 


You mean that they didn't throttle down while landing? Gee and here I thought that if they landed at full power as most moon landing hoax people claim they would never touch the surface of the moon. Interesting thing about a vertical landing, if you don't reduce power while coming down, you either don't touch the ground, or if you do somehow manage to, you bounce right back up and stay up. When the LEM touched the surface of the moon they were at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced power setting than the 100% most people think. In fact if you watch the video, they increase power and bounce back up into the air to avoid rocks.


And as one astute youtube commenter posted:
"Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."

The clips that this "Aussie genius" repeatedly shows are of rockets in Earth's atmosphere. Conditions are quite different when the ambient air pressure is essentially zero. Suffice to say I am unconvinced by his "No Crater" argument.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


these numbers to which you refer are not able to be accurately processed
because the only available numbers are from reports
and blueprints



I've referred to NO numbers.

You are the one who has mentioned numbers. In a previous post you said:



the moon landings are not able to be proven or dis-proven because of the lack of solid validity
and the contradictory numbers
the many anomalies
and the mounds and mounds of "lost"evidence
this all renders the event inconclusive at best


So I just repeat what I asked earlier:

And I ask you again, what are these "contradictory numbers" you speak of? You came here making definitive statements that either the TLI burn was insufficient or there was not enough fuel to get the stack to the moon. However, every time you were asked to back up the assertions with data, you have ignored us.

Now please, give us the data you used to determine the TLI burn was insufficient and these "contradictory numbers".



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Not to be rude, but epic fail on your part again Pinke.


The first time I had to do switching it was using an old A/B mixer. A/B meaning it had two feeds, and required cable patching to work with more feeds. Considering I was born after 1969 (way after) I'd be suggesting that they maybe didn't have the best gear that day. Even if they did, did they set up monitors properly? Did they really want $50, 000 worth of mixing gear on a boat? How usual was it for a person to shoot live on a random outdoor location in 1969 and need more than one feed?

The following I'm going to say, and I in no mean any offense PPK. When I first started in this business as a cable monkey/gaffer I think I was kind of like you. I had a good paper education and I was damn well going to use it. I'd lament at the mistakes of my peers, and discuss what was 'meant' to happen. Early on I worked on your countries television. I've seen all kinds of things from Australian TV ... I've seen a lens flare used as a muzzle flash on well known current affairs programs and this was in the last two years. I've seen them shoot with panasonic HVX cameras at night with no lights and then put it to broadcast. One time I was running wires from a morning program there. There was a singer there and as part of her agreement to perform she had her own crew on the set named after her. Since she was sponsored by an audio hardware company so she had to use all her own kit. Part of that kit was an audio engineer who ran part of his hardware off a single apple macbook. It crashed a few minutes before we were on air on a tech run through. The entire broadcast almost came to a halt due a single audio engineer. He managed to load a second mac book about a minute before go time and the day was saved ... luckily the audio sounded okay. While I salute the man under pressure, I remember at the time thinking ... wow ... a single macbook.

The fact is my short time in live broadcast taught me that the whole thing is a house of sticks. No one actually has as much money as you would think looking in. No one has as much redundancy as you think they would. Sometimes crews even these days run without preview monitors in the field, I've seen directors camped behind the cameras of their camera staff, and technical directors run a shot on the advice of a camera op or just smack a button because they're so sure the shot would be there. Hell I've seen live Australian news cut to an empty chair.

So when you say the 'very basics' or however it's put ... Believe me I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'm talking from experience. And experience tells me poop hits fans and crap goes wrong. If you're lucky enough and the people you work for are that perfect hell I'll come work for you, or if you're that good I know some job opportunities in the state so send me a U2U.

How this applies to Apollo? Well from what I've seen ... it was a normal shoot. Some stuffs didn't look so great, some shots were missed, but we got enough 'awesome' to have something to watch. It was the typical shoot ... No one brought all the gear we wanted, but we had what we needed. And there's always that person on set you think you can do better than but then you weren't on the spot and, lets face it, sometimes you are that person. Depending what work you have had all of this should sound familiar. If you're still studying film for example well it's something to look forward to and drive you nuts for the rest of your life.

I guess from whatever way you and Jarrah see Apollo I so far just don't see it the same way, which leads me to believe you must have had a very different broadcast experience to me. Whatever you do though buddy, please stop trying to imply I dunno what I'm doing. If I put it in too much detail you say I googled it, and when I leave the detail out you pounce on the vagueness to say I'm not who I say I am. Well last time I checked I'm just me.

Sorry for the ramblings all. >.<



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


the contradictory numbers that i am referring to
are in regards to the amount of radiation exposure
that the astronauts received while on the surface of the moon

all of the preliminary reports from the LRO
show that
the perceived amount of radiation exposure is 30% to 40% higher
than previously reported

contradictory numbers
edit on 10/19/2010 by Josephus23 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 




contradictory numbers


Speaking of numbers...

Why not include the "numbers" you keep talking about yet never seem to provide details about.

What numbers contradict each other?

Where is the data to support your claims?



edit on 19-10-2010 by theability because: mistype



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
BECAUSE this thread has (by no fault of any valid participants' actions, IMO) trended to waver a bit from the ORIGINAL assertion, to wit:

"Young Aussie Genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate" (original posting title).

Personal observation: IN the ensuing VAST numbers of pages, this OP has been soundly shown to be....(drumroll)....false!!. (Despite all protests, soundly defeated, to contrary).

HOWEVER--- given that, because of the discordant, and continued heated(ness)(??) of recent (and increasingly off-the-original-mark comments---myself, not innocent of reacting emotionally, and thus, contributing to the "madness") what will follow, in THIS thread, and posted below, a series of refutations from a NON-ATS member, and in the manner as the originally touted "genius"
who is only known for his "YouTube" sets of videos....as they continue to INFEST the Internet.

These that follow are solid refutations....by no means equal in NUMBERS to the pure pablum and idiotic ramblings that "Jarrah White" spews from his cake hole, but instead, like a surgeon's scalpel, right to the point, and eviscerating (cutting out) any and all of "JW"s insipid assertions....in no particular order:





















There are only a few.....well, ten. I suggest that ANYONE who has bothered to watch the majority of "Jarrah White"s crap videos, and thought them "convincing" in any way, take the hour and a half (or so) and watch/listen/pay attention to these.

Looking at the beginning and opening remarks of the LAST video, just above, show quite clearly the incredible IDIOCY of "Jarrah White", and also clearly shows that he gets the MAJORITY of his notions from the other "idiot".....the so-called "grandfather" of the "Moon Hoax Conspiracy".....in fact, HE (Bill Kaysing) actually made the whole thing up, ON A DARE!!! ---- just to get PUBLICITY, for his books!!!! (**)

(**) This can be researched, and has been already discussed, in this thread.

AND...by no means, are these ~ten YouTube videos the entire refutation to the CRAP that people like "Jarrah White" spew (for whatever motive, we can only speculate). His JUNK is only meant to be "believed" by the most gullible, least-educated amongst us.

The average mentality of most humans on this planet, and especially the MAJORITY of ATS members are well above this base of lowest IQs...who would be inclined to fall for the "Jarrah White nonsense.....one would hope........


edit on 19 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text, tags



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Another huge contradiction involving Jarrah White is as follows:

After repeating talks about radiation and how the astronauts would never have survive the deadly effects on a trip to the moon, he has now....

...started to solicit money to take a Lunar-Fly-By in which he says isn't possible, due to deadly radiation, right?

:shk:

Wow Foosm and JW and all that support this guy, he doesn't even know what he is claiming anymore.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Weedwhacker good call posting those videos by philwebb59, who is an engineer. He does an excellent job of holding academia to Jarrah White's noise, and outrageous claims.

Nothing of JW's claims hold in light of scrutiny.




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I honestly think that it is impossible for you to comment without insulting someone

However sly the insult might come across

If someone believes that these videos are valid
that does not
in any way
relate to their IQ

I think that for a young man
This kid is at least putting on his critical thinking cap and I applaud him for that

And simply disagreeing with someone
is no reason to call into question anyone's IQ

Here are some of my favorite Cicero quotes
I hope that someone finds them to be enlightening



He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero


link to quote



I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero


link to quote



In doubtful cases the more liberal interpretation must always be preferred.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero


link to quote



It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero


link to quote


cheers



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


What a great catch!!!! Was lost on many of us, but YOU caught it!!!



......contradiction involving Jarrah White is as follows:

After repeating talks about radiation and how the astronauts would never have survive the deadly effects on a trip to the moon, he has now....

...started to solicit money to take a Lunar-Fly-By in which he says isn't possible, due to deadly radiation, right?


How hilarious!!! Can't wait to see the twisting that follows.....

BTW....I got WAY too hot, and THAT was a post removed. I will re-address the point, in that post, with a modicum of civility.

This is directed at a member OTHER than the one replied to, in this post, but is open to comment by all, please:

ATS member FoosM has attempted to support "Jarrah White"s assertions (incorrect, as they are) of an airplane-drop of Apollo Command Modules, for the splashdown events.

I responded with photos, depicting the results of the CM (Command Module) after being subjected to entry (or "reentry") heating effects....compared to the appearance of CMs prior to launch. (There are also plenty of photos, and videos, of the same CMs IN SPACE, prior to entry into Earth's atmosphere, and recovery at splashdown). And, challenged the ATS member (FoosM to respond.

I now repeat that challenge....in (I hope) a more civil form of expression.

We (the audience) are looking forward to the reply......



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Kind "sir".....

The timestamps show that the elapsed span of time, between my posting of those TEN YouTube videos, and YOUR response is about 15 minutes.

There is no way you have had the opportunity to view them all, (unless, IF you claim you have seen then previously...and IF so, then I will apologize)....BUT, IF you simply responded without viewing what I posted.....well, then you really are not in a position to judge me on their pertinence.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


the contradictory numbers that i am referring to
are in regards to the amount of radiation exposure
that the astronauts received while on the surface of the moon

all of the preliminary reports from the LRO
show that
the perceived amount of radiation exposure is 30% to 40% higher
than previously reported

contradictory numbers
edit on 10/19/2010 by Josephus23 because: spelling


Once again, I ask for specific numbers!

You are making an assertion, please back it up.

And I repeat again:

You came here making definitive statements that either the TLI burn was insufficient or there was not enough fuel to get the stack to the moon. However, every time you were asked to back up the assertions with data, you have ignored us. Now please, give us the data you used to determine the TLI burn was insufficient.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 224  225  226    228  229  230 >>

log in

join