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: 232
377
<< 229  230  231    233  234  235 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
And yet AGAIN as Foos can't answer this simple question for some reason:


Which country/countries or organisation's images taken by their lunar probe (past or future) would you accept as evidence of the Apollo landings? Who is trustworthy enough for you to accept their word?

Name of country/countries or organisation(s) please Foos.


For starters

Ground based telescopes for anyone to see and analyze the landing sites:


When known skeptics like JW and others see it for themselves:




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Also, two different sources claiming the same information is not a typo.


I only counted one source. Please provide the full citations coupled with their respective links. Lumping all your sources together at the end makes it very difficult to check your work.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
But in the meantime, why dont you explain where and how they stored the additional 120 pounds of lunar material on Apollo 16?
Apollo 16 used 7 SCBs and 2 SRCs. Their total combined capacity was 129,083 cubic centimeters. That's really not a lot. That could fit in a cube less than 20 inches on a side.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
But in the meantime, why dont you explain where and how they stored the additional 120 pounds of lunar material on Apollo 16?
Apollo 16 used 7 SCBs and 2 SRCs. Their total combined capacity was 129,083 cubic centimeters. That's really not a lot. That could fit in a cube less than 20 inches on a side.


Ok.... how about answering the rest of the questions?
And what is your source?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, exactly! Sigh....

It took you guys long enough to discover that not all lunar materials were stowed away in those two Rock Boxes.
So you knew the samples weren't all stored in the ALSRCs, but were arguing they shouldn't all be able to fit in the ALSRCs? Duh, indeed!



Thats right. Now how many of you guys were arguing those boxes held all the lunar samples and tried to prove it with math?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


For starters

Ground based telescopes for anyone to see and analyze the landing sites:



I hate to tell you Foos, but any image from the VLT would be of much less quality than the LRO images that you and Jarrah dismiss, and I highly doubt whether anyone would fork out the money for extremely valuable scope time to waste it on such a lark.

So why even bother? You'll just dismiss it anyway.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thats right. Now how many of you guys were arguing those boxes held all the lunar samples and tried to prove it with math?


We proved that the LSRCs could easily contain all the samples. You tried to prove that the samples exceeded what could be returned. Now you are trying to make it appear as though you knew all along that not all the samples were returned in the rock boxes, which means that your calculations were not only bogus, they were an attempt to lie. Whether or not all the samples were returned in the LSRCs, simple math proves that they could be and even your intentionally fraudulent calculations are irrelevant. By the way, where are those two references you are now trying to claim?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
But in the meantime, why dont you explain where and how they stored the additional 120 pounds of lunar material on Apollo 16?
Apollo 16 used 7 SCBs and 2 SRCs. Their total combined capacity was 129,083 cubic centimeters. That's really not a lot. That could fit in a cube less than 20 inches on a side.


Ok.... how about answering the rest of the questions?
And what is your source?

They stored the materials in the stowage locations in the LM to the left and right of the commander and pilot and in the aft. In the CM, the samples were stored on the floor, under the seats.

My sources are the Apollo 16 Lunar Sample Information Catalog, which tells you what samples were in the the 7 SCBs and 2 SRCs. The Catalog of Apollo Lunar Surface Geological Sampling Tools and Containers puts the volume of the SCBs at 13,869 cubic centimeters and the volume of the SRCs at 16,000 cubic centimeters. And note that my calculation of a 20-inch cubed area assumes the containers were full. They were not, so it would all take up even less space.

edit on 25-10-2010 by nataylor because: Tags



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, exactly! Sigh....

It took you guys long enough to discover that not all lunar materials were stowed away in those two Rock Boxes.
So you knew the samples weren't all stored in the ALSRCs, but were arguing they shouldn't all be able to fit in the ALSRCs? Duh, indeed!



Thats right. Now how many of you guys were arguing those boxes held all the lunar samples and tried to prove it with math?

You you were deliberating lying in many posts, making up false information? Just shows the lengths your dishonesty will go to. I trust others will take anything you say in the future with a large block of salt, as you are now an admitted liar and falsifier (ironically, the very thing you claim of NASA).



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Is Foos actually trying to make a point with the sample return questions?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I have to hand it to FoosM!!! Doing such a bang-up job!!! Resorting to lying and deception, now.

If any of the youngsters out there reading this were "on the fence" and about to fall for that line of BS that spews from the cake hole of "Jarrah White" (noise), then by the time they absorb ALL of the data, and follow all the links to the most arcane trivia regarding the Apollo missions, it becomes ever more clear of their REALITY.

By the efforts of FoosM throwing any crap at the wall, to see what would stick, has forced many to dig even deeper into history....thus showing the many, many layers of information that ALL CONNECTS PERFECTLY, no gaps, no discontinuities.....the sort of mistakes that one would expect if ANY of Apollo had been "faked", as claimed by that arse-hat "Jarrah", and his ilk.

The ONLY way for Moon "HB"s ("hoax believers") to have their brief moments of "fame" is by using deception, when they "analyze" the Apollo information, and records. AND, other sources that they twist and mis-use....one merely has to research for oneself to see.

Of course, the delusional "beliefs" are limited to only the spotty-brained crowd, in the larger sceme of the World. AND, if each and every one of them were exposed to learning, and especially to a museum, where they can see the REAL stuff, and grasp its significance, then I doubt any of them would remain a "HB" for very long......


jra

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
For starters

Ground based telescopes for anyone to see and analyze the landing sites:


You'd need one massive telescope to make out the landing sites from Earth. The mirror would have to be about 200m in diameter at least. No such telescope exists or comes close to that size.

Any other third party sources you'd find acceptable? What about China and the recently launched Chang'e 2? It will have a resolution of 10m/pixel at 100km and 1.5m/pixel at 15km. If they image any Apollo landing site at a high enough resolution, would you believe it? Or is China in on it too



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ground based telescopes for anyone to see and analyze the landing sites:


As you've been told several times and as any serious astronomer will tell you, there are no telescopes capable of resolving anything that small on the moon.

Even if you wasted your money building one physically big enough to do so, the atmospheric disturbances would be so great it would be practically useless. So you've specified something you know very well doesn't exist and never will! Bravo!

And even if there was and could be one, you would probably start arguing that the evidence is fake because there is no way a ground based telescope could resolve the landing sites. Or you would argue that the telescope is run by some country or organisation that can't be trusted.



When known skeptics like JW and others see it for themselves:


What a sheep! LOL So if your fuhrer says everything's OK and gives you the thumbs up, suddenly you'll believe? What you have no opinion? And you have the cheek to mock others like us saying WE are sheep blindly following NASA when you blindly follow some whiny little nobody brat?? Get a grip..
And what exactly will convince precious little Jarrah? His Moon trip he's raising money for that HE CLAIMS IS IMPOSSIBLE? Jarrah... is collecting money from saps.... to send him to the Moon... which he claims is impossible? This says one of two things:
1) He knows it is not impossible and is therefore fraudulently claiming that Apollo is a hoax when knowing full well it's not
2) He sincerely believes it's a hoax and is therefore collecting money from people for a mission he 'knows' cannot be completed - more fraud!
What else may convince Jarrah? Pictures from Moon probes? Why won't you accept them, do you have to look to your master for his nod of approval?

You've backed yourself nicely into a corner there Foos, the DUNCE'S corner.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, exactly! Sigh....

It took you guys long enough to discover that not all lunar materials were stowed away in those two Rock Boxes.
So you knew the samples weren't all stored in the ALSRCs, but were arguing they shouldn't all be able to fit in the ALSRCs? Duh, indeed!



Thats right. Now how many of you guys were arguing those boxes held all the lunar samples and tried to prove it with math?

You you were deliberating lying in many posts, making up false information? Just shows the lengths your dishonesty will go to. I trust others will take anything you say in the future with a large block of salt, as you are now an admitted liar and falsifier (ironically, the very thing you claim of NASA).


Nice try.
But how patently wrong!



You guys get busted and the first thing is you claim lies.
I raised questions, point out anamolies and you guys in your zeal to
prove Apollo real backed yourselves right into a corner. Many of you guys
dont even READ was is being posted, you simply try to offer an answer as
fast as possible.



Its called losing the argument, by underestimating how much
research the other side had actually done. Next time dont jump the
gun and think about what is being posted.




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
But in the meantime, why dont you explain where and how they stored the additional 120 pounds of lunar material on Apollo 16?
Apollo 16 used 7 SCBs and 2 SRCs. Their total combined capacity was 129,083 cubic centimeters. That's really not a lot. That could fit in a cube less than 20 inches on a side.


Ok.... how about answering the rest of the questions?
And what is your source?

They stored the materials in the stowage locations in the LM to the left and right of the commander and pilot and in the aft. In the CM, the samples were stored on the floor, under the seats.


Thats a vague answer. You know that right?
Stowage locations on the LM? Which ones? And what was stored there?
Be specific please and/or provide illustrations.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well this is kind of comical. Being shown you are either wrong or you lied, in no way being able to demonstrate anything you brought up supports your hoax theory, and then call it a victory just because others (admittedly) didn't waste their time to verify your delusional lies or ignorance



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
For starters

Ground based telescopes for anyone to see and analyze the landing sites:


You'd need one massive telescope to make out the landing sites from Earth. The mirror would have to be about 200m in diameter at least. No such telescope exists or comes close to that size.


Ummmm......



The Very Large Telescope array (VLT) is the flagship facility for European ground-based astronomy at the beginning of the third Millennium. It is the world's most advanced optical instrument, consisting of four Unit Telescopes with main mirrors of 8.2m diameter and four movable 1.8m diameter Auxiliary Telescopes. The telescopes can work together, in groups of two or three, to form a giant 'interferometer', the ESO Very Large Telescope Interferometer, allowing astronomers to see details up to 25 times finer than with the individual telescopes. The light beams are combined in the VLTI using a complex system of mirrors in underground tunnels where the light paths must be kept equal to distances less than 1/1000 mm over a hundred metres. With this kind of precision the VLTI can reconstruct images with an angular resolution of milliarcseconds, equivalent to distinguishing the two headlights of a car at the distance of the Moon.




After Melipal and Yepun are completed in the next few years, the four VLTs will be able to combine their light to achieve the sensitivity of a single 16-meter telescope, and the resolution of a single 200-meter telescope.


So, what happened?


n its full interferometric operating mode, the VLT is intended to achieve an effective angular resolution of 0.001 arcsecond at a wavelength of 1 �m. This is an angle of 0.000000005 radians, equivalent to resolving a target 2 meters across at the distance between the Earth and Moon.

This should easily resolve the 5-metre wide Lunar Module bases left on the Moon by the Apollo moon missions, and a group of European scientists intends to do just that to challenge the Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory.


So, what happened?

Oh here is something interesting


Did you know? The skies over the ESO sites in Chile are so dark that on a clear moonless night it is possible to see your shadow cast by the light of the Milky Way alone.


What would that mean for the Moon?

apod.nasa.gov...
www.eso.org...
www.redorbit.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

n its full interferometric operating mode, the VLT is intended to achieve an effective angular resolution of 0.001 arcsecond at a wavelength of 1 �m. This is an angle of 0.000000005 radians, equivalent to resolving a target 2 meters across at the distance between the Earth and Moon.


Emphasis mine. You need to do more research Foos, if you had any scientific understanding of your own you would have become suspicious when you read your article.


This gives the VLT a maximum angular resolution of about 0.001 arc-second at 1 micron wavelength (in the near-infrared), which is equivalent to about 2 meters at the distance of the Moon. (The Moon has an angular diameter of 0.5° and a linear diameter of 3476 km; 0.5°/0.001" = 1,800,000; 3476 km/1,800,000 ~ 2 m). Used in interferometric as distint from individual-instrument mode, however, the VLT is only sensitive to objects with a high surface brightness, such as stars and the nuclei of active galaxies. This makes it unsuitable for observing most objects in the Solar System apart from the Sun.
www.daviddarling.info...



The VLT 8.2 meter telescopes was originally designed to be operated in three modes:[2]

* as a set of four independent telescopes (this is the primary mode of operation). With one such telescope, images of celestial objects as faint as magnitude 30 can be obtained in a one-hour exposure. This corresponds to seeing objects that are four billion times fainter than what can be seen with the unaided eye.
* as a single large coherent interferometric instrument (the VLT Interferometer or VLTI), for extra resolution. This mode is occasionally used, only for observations of relatively bright sources with small angular extent.
* as a single large incoherent instrument, for extra light-gathering capacity. The instrumentation required to bring the light to a combined incoherent focus was not built. Recently, new instrumentation proposals have been put forward for making this observing mode available.[3] Multiple telescopes are sometimes independently pointed at the same object, either to increase the total light-gathering power, or to provide simultaneous observations with complementary instruments.
en.wikipedia.org...


Emphasis also mine.


Originally posted by FoosM
So, what happened?


That's 'what happened' Foos and you'd have known that if you knew a single thing about the subject matter. If everyone had a theme tune, yours would be "Entrance of the Gladiators".



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I emailed Dr West from the VLT about this issue, but never received a reply to my 2 emails.

My emails to Dr. West of the VLT

Dear Richard,

I've been following the VLT for a number of years and was wondering if you have had any success in locating the Apollo remnants on the moon's surface.
I understand from an article written in 2002 in the UK Telegraph, that if one mirror failed you would consider using all 4 mirrors.

I was wondering, did you have any success using all 4 mirrors?

Here is the old article.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I'm very interested in this project and would appreciate any update.

2nd email

Hi Richard, I'm sorry, I know you must be very busy, but if you find a
few spare seconds would you be able to answer my email sent
previously.
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well this is kind of comical. Being shown you are either wrong or you lied, in no way being able to demonstrate anything you brought up supports your hoax theory, and then call it a victory just because others (admittedly) didn't waste their time to verify your delusional lies or ignorance


Hmmm.... a typical non answer.
Sweat forming on the brow?

Let me help you:


Irwin: Okay. We want bag 7, of course, in cover 7. Next line, bag 4; and then the next line there is bag 5 in the RHSSC (Right-hand Side Stowage Compartment); bag 4 in the LHSSC (Left-Hand Side Stowage Compartment) and cover 8. The next line is 3 and then 6 in cover 6. Over.







Sample Containment Bag



John and Charlie empty the ETB, stow the film magazines, and put cover bags - called sample containment bags - over the sample collection bags (SCBs)



[Sample Containment Bags were flown on the J missions to reduce the amount of dust in the cabin and the potential problems it might cause once they get back to orbit. The Sample Collection Bags were put inside the Containment Bags.




bag 7 will be stowed on the aft engine cover; bag 4 on/in the LHMS; bag 5 will go in the RHSSC (Right-Hand Side Stowage Compartment); bag 8 will go in the LHSSC; and bags 3 and 6 will go in the ISA (Interim Stowage Assembly). Note that, in the on-board copy of the checklist, Charlie wrote 5 and 8 in the wrong blanks and then corrected himself with the notations "RH" and "LH"


ISA:



So.... whats missing?


www.hq.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 229  230  231    233  234  235 >>

log in

join