Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


Since you have posted numerous times since I challenged you to provide your second citation, we are all assuming that that was yet another lie. Incidentally, I am now going to up the stakes by challenging you to go back to the earlier posts and find one single statement that claims that all of the samples must have been returned in the rock boxes. Only one person makes that claim. Guess who?

Originally posted by FoosMSo.... whats missing?

Your sense of intellectual honesty?

Please, tell us what's missing.

reply to post by FoosM


SO....now that you've done the proper research into the Lunar samples return, and how it was accomplished (instead of going off half-cocked, as you did at the beginning) you finally see for yourself how the claims you made earlier were incorrect.

Of course, an apology, and admission of your earlier errors will not be forthcoming, I imagine....par for the course.

Spot on....you're learning. Means there is hope for your education. You may not have to repeat last year's term again, after all....

Originally posted by DJW001 I am now going to up the stakes by challenging you to go back to the earlier posts and find one single statement that claims that all of the samples must have been returned in the rock boxes. Only one person makes that claim. Guess who?

I'll be honest (unlike Foos). I took Foos at his word (big mistake), and assumed the samples were all returned in the SRCs. I did my calculations and came up with a total potential capacity far in excess of the actual weight of the returned samples. So I saw nothing odd that made it "impossible" that all the samples couldn't have fit in the SRCs. But then I actually went and did the research and found that all the samples weren't returned in the SRCs. So I learned my lesson about accepting anything Foos has to say.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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".

Tut tut... I had read that and of course its mentioned in Jarrah's video.
But I see that as an excuse.
Why claim one thing, and then later back out and claim its not possible?
In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?
Who twisted who's arm?
Or
Who made a fundamental mistake?
Or
Who lied about the claims and why?

reply to post by FoosM

In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?
Who twisted who's arm?
Or
Who made a fundamental mistake?
Or
Who lied about the claims and why?

No-one with adequate reading comprehension expected anything. Speaking about lying about claims, where's that second citation?

Originally posted by FoosM
Tut tut... I had read that and of course its mentioned in Jarrah's video.
But I see that as an excuse.
Why claim one thing, and then later back out and claim its not possible?
In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?

Well actually it was 2002 not 2009 (See I'm helping you, God knows you need it) and it all originates from a Telegraph article back then.

Link to Telegraph article

At this point I would like to remind you how the media can't be trusted, what with all those lies about poor little Jarrah being thrown out after speaking to Buzz (which if he wasn't he should have been just for being a moron). Do you remember that? Funny how you forget when it suits you, suddenly something a newspaper printed is the Holy Grail

Anyway, the article states:

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.

The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

Dr West insisted, however, that the decision to examine the landing sites was not driven by the conspiracy theory. "We do not question the reality of the landings," he said. "It is more for instrument-testing purposes."

Notice the use of 'hopes', 'most probably' and 'something at the landing sites'. I.e. there was no certainty that they would actually be able to detect anything. Of course if they did it would be a couple of pixels across if they're lucky and that's assuming everything worked at optimal efficiency. As suggested in the article they were also more likely to spot the shadow that the actual lander.

Also, as I have already pointed out, the telescope is not configured to combine the images from all four telescopes in a manner suitable for resolving the image and you'll probably find they couldn't resolve it with one, which is not unexpected in the slightest. I'm not even sure why they thought they could, it's rather optimistic to say the least and probably exaggeration by an overzealous reporter.

You have to remember, the futile attempt to try and convince you... er.. people. is hardly the number one priority when it comes to using this equipment. What's the point anyway? If you were shown an image of the moon with a little smear and were told it was the shadow of a lander (which is all you would likely get if anything from this) you would just stand there with the usual blank stare wiping snot from your nose and say it's fake or it 'don't prove nuffin'.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Tut tut... I had read that and of course its mentioned in Jarrah's video.
But I see that as an excuse.
Why claim one thing, and then later back out and claim its not possible?
In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?

Well actually it was 2002 not 2009 (See I'm helping you, God knows you need it) and it all originates from a Telegraph article back then.

Link to Telegraph article

What I said was not incorrect.
But what you have brought up goes to show how long these plans have been in effect.
It also goes to show how powerful the conspiracy has been for them to even make mention of it.
And, being that they haven't been able to provide pictures of the landing sites with proof of machinery or shadows of the LM, goes to show that nothing is actually there.
Oh Im sure they tried.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Since you have posted numerous times since I challenged you to provide your second citation, we are all assuming that that was yet another lie. Incidentally, I am now going to up the stakes by challenging you to go back to the earlier posts and find one single statement that claims that all of the samples must have been returned in the rock boxes. Only one person makes that claim. Guess who?

You know what, dont pretend like you lost the ability to use google.
If you didnt want to search through the links I provided, all you had to do was copy and paste text in Google or any one of your favorite search engines.
You would been provided with several locations of that quote.
For example:

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

All samples should have been returned in the rock boxes because they supposedly ensured that the materials would be returned without contamination. By not doing so NASA created for themselves a backdoor by being able to claim "contamination" if the lunar rocks and soil under close inspection failed amongst the scientific community.

In 2009, India's Chandrayaan-1 probe and two NASA spacecraft found water clinging to much of the lunar surface. Before Chandrayaan failed, its imaging spectrometer zoomed in on the Apollo 15 landing site. Analysis now shows that relatively water-rich soil exists on the Apennine slopes nearby. Driving to the water "would have been tough for their vehicle – but it was awfully close if they knew where to go get it", says Chandrayaan team member Roger Clark of the US Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado.

In fact, signs of water turned up in samples from all of the lander missions, but were disregarded because of possible contamination (see "How did we miss the moon's water?" below).

Now three different teams have found water in a mineral called apatite in Apollo rock samples.

How did we miss the moon's water?
The Apollo samples contained water, so why were the signs disregarded?

Soil collected during all Apollo landings contained traces of water. And material scooped up by Apollo 16 had signs of methane and hydrogen cyanide, compounds found in comets – a possible source of the stuff.

The ugly spectre of contamination was raised because none of the 12 "rock boxes" carrying the Apollo samples kept their vacuum during transit, with about half returning to the Earth's atmospheric pressure. The boxes were also opened up at NASA inside cabinets filled with nitrogen gas that was later discovered to contain 20 parts per million of water. Indeed, early isotopic studies revealed suspicious similarities between the water in some lunar soils and on Earth.

Backdoor

Ambiguity plagued other hints of water. Researchers argued that brown rust stains on an Apollo 16 rock could have formed if the rock contained a mineral called lawrencite and was exposed even briefly to terrestrial water vapour. And reports of what appeared to be a water-bearing mineral called amphibole in several lunar samples simply "never caught on", says Apollo scientist Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

Despite the uncertainties, these hints may have been dismissed too quickly due to "group think", says Apollo veteran David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. "These [reports] were discounted very early because most lunar rocks showed no sign of water," he says. "It was almost taboo," adds Roger Clark of the US Geological Survey. "It really showed a bias in the science community."

Thats right, like how you guys were "group-thinked" into believing in the Apollo scam and any notion of suggesting fakery was TABOO.

Opinion began to shift in 2008, when a team led by Alberto Saal of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, found up to 50 parts per million of water inside tiny spheres of volcanic glass collected during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions. The water was concentrated at the centre of the beads, suggesting it was not a product of terrestrial contamination. That started a lot of people looking again at the Apollo samples, says Taylor. As a former sceptic, he admits he has had to "eat his shorts" now that water is confirmed.

Oh really? And here I thought scientists and geologists are infallible!
Color me surprised...

Working with lunar sample curators, Steele is part of a team using powerful instruments to eye the condition of select Moon materials. He not only found brush bristles, but bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, as well as a few earthly organisms having a picnic within lunar samples.

"Some of them are pretty snotty," Steele told SPACE.com...

All of the specimens inspected by Steele, including a core sample, show evidence of contamination, mostly by plastics, he reported during the 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, held March 12-16 at the NASA center.

Steele is quick to point out that truly pristine lunar samples are likely within the Apollo collection. "The curitorial people are working incredibly hard to make sure that Apollo samples are sealed up and have never seen the atmosphere. My hat is off to them. Theyve done a brilliant job," he said.

Judith Allton, a Lockheed Martin researcher and part of JSCs advanced curation-planning team, said that several core tubes from the Apollo expeditions remain unopened. "You need to have something in reserve for future studies when techniques are better and ideas are better," she told SPACE.com.

Yeah, like the gold in Fort Knox.

Former Apollo 17 astronaut, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, said his impression is that lunar samples have been taken care of well throughout the years.

"I am sure that there may have been exceptions, but reputable researchers cannot afford to work on contaminated samples," Schmitt said in a later interview. At the time, there were unavoidable incidents of contamination, he said, which everyone knows occurred during collection, transport, and handling prior to distribution.

Schmitt said that the lunar sample containers were unable to retain a vacuum and most samples came back in bags without sample box protection. Spacecraft atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere contaminated the samples at that point, he said.

Yeah, smart huh, bringing rocks back in unsealed bags.

What a bunch of Apollogists


www.space.com...
www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by FoosM


You aren't going to weasel out of your deception and lying and obfuscating this easily:

But what you have brought up goes to show how long these plans have been in effect.
It also goes to show how powerful the conspiracy has been for them to even make mention of it.

That doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. You, here, are hoping that NO ONE will check what the article in "The Telegraph" says, and the dates? And, just how does an article from 2002 indicate a long-running "powerful conspiracy" of events from 1969-1972???

The only "long running" so-called "conspiracy" is that which was MADE UP by idiots, originally, like Bill Kaysing. It had only been kept alive by a trickle fringe of equally idiotic people....UNTIL the invention of the Internet. That, combined with the shockingly and appallingly (evidently) POOR quality of education that seems to have been the case, in the last twenty years or so, has bred a crop of young people IGNORANT of science, technology and history, to such a degree that they have no skills to rationally assess the baloney spewed from the likes of Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and others before the Internet...and now, morons like "Jarrah White" (noise) today.

But, before you scamper off, thinking you've left a "zinger", this is a flat out LIE:

And, being that they haven't been able to provide pictures of the landing sites with proof of machinery or shadows of the LM, goes to show that nothing is actually there.

The photos exist. They were NOT needed for anyone else, who already know that the Apollo landing sites are there. But, it wouldn't matter to people like you, and "JW" (noise), no matter WHAT photos were presented. You could be taken there personally, and allowed to see it firsthand, and you would still claim it wasn't there.

The people on YouTube, like "JW" (noise) ...and he isn't the only one....are pests; because they continue to infect the gullible, by injecting ignorance into society

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Tut tut... I had read that and of course its mentioned in Jarrah's video.
But I see that as an excuse.
Why claim one thing, and then later back out and claim its not possible?
In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?

Well actually it was 2002 not 2009 (See I'm helping you, God knows you need it) and it all originates from a Telegraph article back then.

What I said was not incorrect.

We've got to have that quoted just for posterity, amazing.. You can't even admit when you made a mistake, you're pretty darn special arn't you? :shk:

As for the rest of what you wrote, seriously - what planet are you on? :shk:

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMSo.... whats missing?

Your sense of intellectual honesty?

Please, tell us what's missing.

Are you PLB?
Are you using multiple accounts?
Cause I believe I asked PLB the same question.

reply to post by FoosM

If you didnt want to search through the links I provided, all you had to do was copy and paste text in Google or any one of your favorite search engines.
You would been provided with several locations of that quote.
For example:

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

But I did go through all the references you posted. That's why I challenged you. How many days did it take you to find that second "source?" From the context of your new reference, it seems that they were more concerned about weight distribution than weight per se. Incidentally, a little googling on my part uncovered that the actual inner volume of the LSRC was 16,000cm3, which would allow it to contain about 48 kilos of basalt. (Not that it matters.) So I stand by my "cocktail napkin."

reply to post by FoosM


Foosm, do you know what the word "interferometer" means in the phrase VLT Interferometer?"

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Tut tut... I had read that and of course its mentioned in Jarrah's video.
But I see that as an excuse.
Why claim one thing, and then later back out and claim its not possible?
In 2009 people expected to see Apollo sites on the moon via telescope on the ground within a couple of years.
What happened?

Well actually it was 2002 not 2009 (See I'm helping you, God knows you need it) and it all originates from a Telegraph article back then.

What I said was not incorrect.

We've got to have that quoted just for posterity, amazing.. You can't even admit when you made a mistake, you're pretty darn special arn't you? :shk:

As for the rest of what you wrote, seriously - what planet are you on? :shk:

Mistake, seriously?
I could have said 2008, 2007, or even 2010.
Think about it. LOL.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

If you didnt want to search through the links I provided, all you had to do was copy and paste text in Google or any one of your favorite search engines.
You would been provided with several locations of that quote.
For example:

ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

But I did go through all the references you posted. That's why I challenged you. How many days did it take you to find that second "source?" From the context of your new reference, it seems that they were more concerned about weight distribution than weight per se. Incidentally, a little googling on my part uncovered that the actual inner volume of the LSRC was 16,000cm3, which would allow it to contain about 48 kilos of basalt. (Not that it matters.) So I stand by my "cocktail napkin."

Ummm.... yeah, so what you are implying is that I made up a quote, but then managed after a few days to find the exact quote of my own made up text. Oh boy... people are really reaching here. (rolls eyes)

And Im glad your napkin calculations prove you can do math.
But like you said, "not that it matters." because NASA posted what they put in those boxes.
So my original sandbag analogy still stands.

reply to post by FoosM

So my original sandbag analogy still stands.

Yes, but what about your argument based on the assumption that all the samples were returned in the LSRCs? Does that still stand?

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah PLOP....

LRO Apollo 15 3D


Apollo 14 in 3D

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So my original sandbag analogy still stands.

Yes, but what about your argument based on the assumption that all the samples were returned in the LSRCs? Does that still stand?

What!? Srlsy

Looks like there is some confusion here.
Let me start over.

When I made my Rock & Roll post
I assumed that all samples were returned in the Rock Boxes.
Because thats how NASA pitched in their documents.
My main question was how they managed to increasingly fit so many samples in those two small boxes.
And where NASA placed those samples in the CM.

After a few exchanges with you guys, I researched further and read comments on the net that extra material was brought via tote bags.
Looking into it deeper, indeed my original assumption that those two rock boxes only held up to 40 pounds of material each was proven correct, but indeed NASA used for additional or excess samples extra BAGS.

That got me to wondering, "where did they fit it all?". Not only in the CM, which only shows place for those two rock boxes, but also the LM, where I can find information where they placed the extra bags, but not the Rock Boxes. And why dont we see the extra bags being brought into the labs?

And, this also meant that NASA, by bringing lunar material in bags, had basically contaminated the samples from the get go. Why would they do that?

Now I will make this statement.
I find it incredulous not only the way NASA claimed to have handled the lunar materials.
But also the LACK of documentation of supposedly bringing back the first materials from the moon.
The un-boxing of the rock boxes should have been widely covered. Not only for promotion, but also for
proving how much they actually brought back.
Every rock and sample should have been unpacked and recorded on film like it was gold from King Tuts Tomb.
Maybe it was done, but at this point, I cant find it.

Originally posted by cushycrux
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah PLOP....

LRO Apollo 15 3D
[ats]http://attacke.blogsport.de/images/4519353550_5d940bb24c_o.png

Apollo 14 in 3D
[ats]http://cdn.discovermagazine.com/gallery/albums/lro/lro_apollo14_anaglyph.jpg

So what are you implying?
You think those images are real because they are in 3D?