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: 237
377
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Kailassa, as you haven't really made any points at all, and have indicated you really don't care.. (*shrug*) this is all the energy I care to expend on you. bye.


Now, back to FoosM - who you will note has immediately changed the subject several times, as he didn't want to respond to this.




You called that extensive deep analysis of JW's videos?
You know how many videos JW has? And all you basically did in those two examples
was to mostly insult JW instead of discuss the information presented.
So what you posted really didn't require a response because it was outrageous.

next




posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You called that extensive deep analysis of JW's videos?

Your lame attempt to avoid the posts I actually linked to earlier, results in this - here are the reviews, reposted - NOW ADDRESS THE POINTS:

The OP's first video:

0:00 to 0:30
Irrelevant and indescribably kitsch intro sequence. Presumably intended to liken his abilities to that of James Bond - sadly he doesn't realise that JB is fictional and was neither a scientist or a particularly good investigator. Hmm, maybe there is a comparison to be made.

Anyway, enough ad hominem, on to the actual content..

0:30 to 1:35
Irrelevant references to Bill Kaysing (a widely discredited Apollo Denier) and William Brian (who?). Mr Brian apparently was the first to notice a flag wobbled, but he didn't know why. Oh, but he did believe we went to the moon..

1:35 to 1:40
JW gives an 'example' of flag movement, yet I can see no significant movement whatsoever. Anyone esle? Maybe I'll do a proper frame analysis later.

1:40 to 1:45
JW gives a second 'example. *Again* I can see no flag movement, but clearly the *camera* moves...

1:45 to 2:05
JW gives an example from Apollo 16 where the astronaut is unfurling/handling the flag. He repeats a small sequence where the astronaut's hand can CLEARLY be seen moving against the lower part of the flag and the bottom of the flag gets flicked upwards. It appears JW was 'unaware' there might have been some stiffening material along the lower edge of the flag...

But wait a minute, was Jarrah REALLY unaware of that???

Here's a link to the full clip (something I don't think Jarrah wants you to see) - it's not all that big (RealMovie format, sorry - see below*):
history.nasa.gov...
Take a look for yourself, from about 2/3 of the way through, as he struggles to get that flag to cooperate. The fact that there is stiffening material at the bottom seems pretty obvious. Yet Jarrah deliberately omitted all that from his careful selection. Why is that, do you think?

Then he shows us his attempts to recreate the effect, and of course it's not going to happen without that stiffening strip.

2:30 to 3:35
JW shows the Apollo 15 video where the flag wobbles slightly as astronaut Dave Scott passes by. Much repetition and dramatic music.

3:35 to 5:40
Incomprehensible, unprofessional and irrelevant ad hominem attacks on posters with contradictory opinions. Frankly, this sort of garbage shows what type of person he is. Ever seen that sort of childish behavior in a real scientific demonstration? UNbelievable...

5:40 to 6:50
JW presents the possible reasons (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?) for the movement, namely:
1. The astronaut brushed the pole and/or flag.
2. He kicked dirt against the pole
3. His foot 'pushed' a mound of regolith in such a way that it moved the pole
4. The vibration of his boots moved the pole and/or set up a resonance.
5. A static charge effect caused the flag to be attracted and/or repelled
6. There was an emission (eg from a pressure valve) on the astronauts suit or PLSS that impinged on the flag.

Note that these are not verbatim, and I've added some other possibilities (there is in fact at least one more..). Static electricity is certainly not my favorite, but I'll leave that for later in the thread... I'm not sure why he chose it to start with.

6:50 to 7:25
JW returns to making further ad hominem attacks - this stuff is extremely tiresome.

7:25 -
Temporarily (i hope) ignoring all other possible explanations, JW now does a demonstration of how static would affect the flag. NOTE:

1. I'll admit I have no degree in triboelectrics (additions/corrections are welcome), but my understanding of static electricity is that this type of attraction or repulsion can only happen if there is a medium to allow the charges to 'pull' or 'push' on each other. While there are minute traces of gases and other 'stuff' near the lunar surface, it is effectively a vacuum. So static attraction/repulsion will only happen if the charged materials touch.

2. He does NOT make any attempt to use matching materials. Static effects vary dramatically in different materials, from extreme positive to extreme negative. Eg:
www.trifield.com...
Note the value range in the 'Affinity' column: +60 to -190. Arbitrarily picking materials means his 'results' are completely useless.

3. He doesn't seem to realise that static effects aren't always attractive.

4. He makes no comment about the conditions for his 'demo' - if the air was humid, the static charge would dissipate rapidly.


In summary, what a complete waste of time.

Funnily enough, I don't think the flag wobble had anything to do with static either. It just goes to show that you can come to the right conclusion using all the wrong methods.


So, all up, this really is a superb example of how this type of youtuber deceives and misleads, relying on the fact that most of his audience are not very science literate.

He uses fancy graphics, titles and music to give the impression of professionalism (when it's just the software choices he makes..).

He uses very brief snippets to mislead, like his comments that the flag moves when it is the camera (1:40).

He deliberately omits information, like the earlier part of the Apollo 16 video that shows the stiffening material that explains the later flag movement where the bottom flicks upwards. (1:55)

He does not provide links or citations, trying to ensure that lazy viewers will not CHECK his sources and see the full context.

He uses completely inappropriate 'analogies' and 'demonstrations' that prove nothing of use, and do not contain a single shred of decent methodology, (eg where are his definitions, assumptions, error ranges, explanation of choices of materials, provisos?) (1:55 & 7:35)


And of course he just plagiarised all his points from others anyway, ignoring previous deBUNKings. It would be nice to see an original thought - he couldn't think of any *other* reasons for the flag movement? - you know, the other 5 possible reasons that he is probably hoping his viewer has now forgotten about?


Next post will have the second review... get started, Foos.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
And here's a review of the Ham radio debacle.


0:00 - 0:30
The usual "I am better than James Bond" ego trip.

0:30 - 2:30
A whiny explanation of pointing dishes at spacecraft and receiving signals, seemingly intended for people who need words of less than three syllables and think 'ham sandwich' is a funny play on words.

2:30 - 2:45
Gives Jarrah White's impression of a ham radio operator of the 60's, with a PC??? Does Jarrah know when PC's became available? Save me.

2:45 - 3:20
Jarrah tries to suggest, completely WRONGLY and very deliberately, that Ham radio enthusiasts can't 'USE' the 2Ghz band (notice that the screen shots he gives DO cover the 2GHz band). They can't TRANSMIT on that band, but they can LISTEN. He keeps saying they can't "USE" the 2Ghz band to pretend that Ham operators couldn't listen in - they CAN. Yet he destroys his own point when he admits that they could, anyway. He also uses the term 'telescope' several times 'they tuned their telescopes'... Your average ham-radio-er doesn't use a 'telescope' to receive radio signals, Jarrah. That just shows how ill-informed you are. They use arrays, aerials, dishes...

3:20 -
The usual ad hominem attacks begin. He then admits that a few ham enthusiasts did in fact receive Apollo signals, but criticises them for not receiving signals when the Moon was below the horizon. What the..? Yes, Jarrah, they should have immediately moved their ham setups to the other side of the world... Unbelievably, it seems the main thrust of his argument is that no ham operator continually received transmissions for the entire trip to the Moon. But THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE for a single station!! - the only reason NASA could do it, was that they had radio telescopes (yes the really big dishes are called that..) on opposite sides of the Earth! Why the flipping heck does Jarrah think that the Apollo 11 first steps were actually received in Australia, when Neil and Buzz decided they wanted to moon-walk early??
Has Jarrah not noticed that the Moon moves through the sky???? It's sad when folks are born without a brain...

Finally, he makes much of the fact that the FCC's NORMAL rules don't permit unapproved re-broadcasting of radio transmissions from what is essentially a government department, without permission. That's a simple and routine formality - can Jarrah show any ham operator who was not allowed to publicise their data? If not, then he has NO POINT.


I tell you right now, it will have to be a something very special to lure me back to that moron's Youtube channel.

Jarrah White - your videos are EXECRABLE CALUMNY.

(And I know you are reading this, so.. look it up...)

(added)

Just for the sake of completion, the actual radio frequencies used were:
On Lunar Surface
2.1018 Ghz (Voice/Updata)
2.2825 Ghz (Voice/TLM/TV)

From Command Module
2.1064, 2.2725 & 2.2875 GHz


Get to work, Foos.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?



Exactly
- Idoit!



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



this is why I usually ignore you.
Even if your posts have good points.




You ignore everyone, who shows your errors, and BACKS UP their information with facts and sources, while you run off to find more irrelevant garbage to throw at the wall.

Every single attempt, by you, to "show" errors or contradictions or anything that could be smugly pointed at, by the "HB"s while they exclaim "Ah hah!! Smoking gun!!" has been a dismal failure.

AND, the very, very patient (at first) responses that continue to be ignored by you?? That recalcitrance can only be interpreted, after having gone on to this extent, as intentional instigation in order to have the frustrating effects, and therefore the (instigator) and his/her "buddies" all sit around the computer monitor and have a laugh, at other good-intentioned people's expense. THAT is one description of "trolling". Sure smells like it, from this side of the screen. Your behavior to date has done nothing to dispel that notion.

You are here to GET schooled, NOT "school" others, because it is so obvious you are in desperate need of proper observational skills, and background information regarding a host of technical details that pertain to the manned space program.


.....(because there may still be a shred of decency in you, yet)....Now that you've cleared up the "LM lending leg moved" confusion (I, too, was trying to figure out what you meant, looking at the "hammer and feather drop" video with
??)....but it was referring to first video. The explanation is as patently obvious as was the question about the strap.

The LM's landing strut leg doesn't move. It is a dodgy live video camera transmission across over 250,000 miles of open space, then received and down-linked from various receiving stations, and thus subject to a certain amount of distortions along the way, in terms of the stability of the picture, and its framing, before you see the final result, at the station where it was recorded. (That is a layman's non-technical, but due to a lifetime of experience WATCHING any number of such broadcasts...Earthbound broadcasts....the effects are perfectly understandable, description. I'm sure someone with more technical knowledge of the nuts and bolts of that system, TV signals, and the process will be able to come up with precise, specific terms).

Capisce?


edit on 2 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: because, because, because!! Because of the wonderful things he does!



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by FoosM

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?



Exactly
- Idoit!



What exactly doyoudo?



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Just for a hypothesis let's say we never went to the moon and faked it. Let's say we've never left low earth orbit with humans.

If China gets it's Space Program going full speed and sends a Space Shuttle full of astronauts out of low earth orbit and they all die from the radiation....does the United States have any legal responsibility for their lives since we've been saying humans can survive without any shielding and can travel as far as the moon and back safely??

Yes. The United States would be found liable for the deaths of those Chinese astronauts along with the loss of shuttle. The families of the astronauts themselves could not bring the case to the International Court, only China could take the case to court.

It is a card we may very well see get played by the Chinese. Will they call our bluff? Would we shoot down their Shuttle to keep them from finding out our secret?



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Sorry, Pervius....I truly hoping your tongue is lodged firmly in your cheek....else, I will have to play my Picard card....





posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


:shk:


Just for a hypothesis let's say we never went to the moon and faked it. Let's say we've never left low earth orbit with humans.
You cannot be serious, this thread covers this point over 4700 posts and 237 pages.

Let me state something again for the record:

"Its has been covered in great detail!

Here is the thread which goes over everything you asked, I suggest you read it, since going in circles with arguments isn't flying anymore.

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

"Its has been covered in great detail!


If China gets it's Space Program going full speed and sends a Space Shuttle full of astronauts out of low earth orbit and they all die from the radiation....does the United States have any legal responsibility for their lives since we've been saying humans can survive without any shielding and can travel as far as the moon and back safely??


The issues with shields, radiation and exposure has been beat to death in this thread a few times over.
"Its has been covered in great detail!


Yes. The United States would be found liable for the deaths of those Chinese astronauts along with the loss of shuttle. The families of the astronauts themselves could not bring the case to the International Court, only China could take the case to court.


That comment makes no sense.


It is a card we may very well see get played by the Chinese. Will they call our bluff? Would we shoot down their Shuttle to keep them from finding out our secret?


The Space Shuttle has absolutely nothing to do with Apollo Missions, Especially any conspiracy of Space Shuttles being shot down.


If you can think of it, in one way shape or form it has all been addressed: From prefab to Press Release, its all been covered.



edit on 2-11-2010 by theability because: mistype

edit on 2-11-2010 by theability because: spelling



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius


Yes. The United States would be found liable for the deaths of those Chinese astronauts along with the loss of shuttle. The families of the astronauts themselves could not bring the case to the International Court, only China could take the case to court.


So it is your contention that there has been no study of the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions?

Are you serious?

Or just seriously misinformed?


jra

posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Sure the Lunar Modules were designed to be flown by astronauts. But there's no reason NASA could not have remotely landed a craft which would look like a LM through a telescope.


Which raises the question, if you believe they can send a full sized LM remotely to the Moon, then why not just take it a step further and put people inside it? There is no reason why NASA could not have sent a manned craft to the Moon. The radiation environment is not as deadly as many HB's would like you to think.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
You know it doesnt take much for the average person to see through
the NASA scam. Take this video for example:


Whenever I show this video to people, red flags go up.
The first thing they notice is how the astronaut fumbles a film magazine into the camera.
Then how badly built the Rover looks and how slow it moves in comparison to this classic clip:


But what really takes the cake is when they notice the help that is needed to
get an astronaut into the rover! Basically in every instance of this video, they either cut to the
astros already in sitting in the Rover or show aids helping the astros get seated in the chairs.

06:24

08:20

So who helped them on the moon?



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
But what really takes the cake is when they notice the help that is needed to
get an astronaut into the rover! Basically in every instance of this video, they either cut to the
astros already in sitting in the Rover or show aids helping the astros get seated in the chairs.
So who helped them on the moon?

The astronauts were far lighter on the moon. Perhaps having less weight made it easy for them to climb into the rover.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Kailassa
Sure the Lunar Modules were designed to be flown by astronauts. But there's no reason NASA could not have remotely landed a craft which would look like a LM through a telescope.


Which raises the question, if you believe they can send a full sized LM remotely to the Moon, then why not just take it a step further and put people inside it? There is no reason why NASA could not have sent a manned craft to the Moon. The radiation environment is not as deadly as many HB's would like you to think.


Firstly, in the interests of accuracy, I did not say, "they can send a full sized LM remotely to the Moon". I said a craft could be landed which looked like a LM, when looking from Earth through a telescope.

Secondly, it's not a matter of belief that NASA could remotely land a craft on the moon. They did so many times. I expect this experience helped NASA with planning the manned landings.

And now for the all-important context. I was replying to a poster who stated that the existance of reflectors and LMs on the Moon was proof of manned missions. Obviously they are not. I was not arguing about manned missions. I was arguing against an illogical concept of proof.

Regarding the radiation environment being "not as deadly as many HB's would like you to think":


How Apollo astronauts avoided a deadly solar flare

(Schmitt’s) second (piece of luck) was that Apollo 17 did not launch until December. In the August, after the safe return of Apollo 16, a large sunspot appeared on the solar surface and let fly a rash of solar flares that pumped deadly radiation into space. Had Schmitt, or any other astronauts, been in space at the time, they would have perished from a fatal dose of solar radiation.



Sickening Solar Flares

The Jan. 20th 2005, proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.

"An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. These symptoms might persist for days.
. . . . .

But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.
Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.

It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.

Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.



I'm not saying radiation would prevent Moon missions. But our increased understanding of the dangers must have some NASA folk waking in a cold sweat when they realise how nearly an Apollo mission could have been wiped out.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So who helped them on the moon?



Gravity?



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


So who helped them on the moon?




Perfect example of the lack of logic and critical thinking you have displayed in this thread, as well as how you completely ignore everything that has been presented to you.

Strap a 180lbs suit on and find out just how difficult it is to move around. Now, consider the impact that 1/6 gravity would have on the ease of movement. If you had read previous replies to your posts in this thread you would have already done this thought experiment (and i have no doubt you understand that the question you ask is stupid, i just havent worked out what benefit you get from intentionally attempting to deceive people aside from childish giggles)

So question answered.

If you would then apply that kind of thinking to the rest of the rubbish you have been peddling you would answer every other "question" you have posed in this thread.

Of course, we both know you have no intention of doing that. So keep spamming whatever completely-devoid-of-fact nonsense you intend to inflict on the world.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by FoosM
But what really takes the cake is when they notice the help that is needed to
get an astronaut into the rover! Basically in every instance of this video, they either cut to the
astros already in sitting in the Rover or show aids helping the astros get seated in the chairs.
So who helped them on the moon?

The astronauts were far lighter on the moon. Perhaps having less weight made it easy for them to climb into the rover.


A possibility, however, when you look at it, its not really about weight, its about mobility.
Its not like their legs are too heavy, they just difficult to move in that suit!
Rarely, if at all do you see astronauts moving freely in the vacuum of space.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM


So who helped them on the moon?




Perfect example of the lack of logic and critical thinking you have displayed in this thread, as well as how you completely ignore everything that has been presented to you.


Well then put your money where you mouth is and lets see a video of the astronauts getting off and on the LRV without help on the moon. This should be an easy debunk. You have three missions to find such evidence. I just provided video where it took at least 2 people to help them to sit during a simulation/test. Here is your chance to debunk this point. Because red flags should go up if in your own simulation/exercise you fail the test.








edit on 3-11-2010 by FoosM because: clarification

edit on 3-11-2010 by FoosM because: quote fix



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I'm a little concerned. Does anyone know if ppk55 is ok? Shortly after I posted the questions below (which I know he was very keen to answer) he just ... vanished. Something must have happened!!!

Oh no, wait... It's ok - I see he has been back to the site, just.. not this particular thread. Phew.

Anyway, here's those questions:

Regarding the VLT:
1. Do explain in detail how a claim about some telescope's potential resolution affected a mission that took place decades earlier.

2. Please quote the figures (for the VLT's claimed resolution).


Regarding the politics:
3. Why *should* we have returned after Apollo?

4. If political issues are important, can you point directly at the huge groundswell of opinion wanting the US to return..?

5. Why was Apollo stopped?


About the email he claims to have sent to Dr Richard West regarding the VLT:
6. Did you get a reply?

7. What email address did you send it to?

8. If you did get a reply, would you care to post it, in full?


Then there's also the transcript of the Eleanor Blakely stuff...
9. Do you agree that the transcript is accurate? - if not, please be specific.

10. Can you see any flaws in JW's claims in that transcript?


Anyway, I'm sure ppk55 is doing something really important that prevents him from answering. After all, this takes time - took me about 170 seconds to type the above..


I'll give him another coupla days, and then I'll answer the questions for him.

edit on 3-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: punku.. puncuash.. commas and stuf..



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
...A possibility, however, when you look at it, its not really about weight, its about mobility.
Its not like their legs are too heavy, they just difficult to move in that suit!
Rarely, if at all do you see astronauts moving freely in the vacuum of space.


Gee, how puzzling.


Earlier in the thread, FoosM has said one of the reasons for doubting the Lunar missions was:

...the astronauts not jumping higher than a person on Earth on the videos

(and of course on several occasions they *did* jump higher than that, anyway)

Then, there was the time when FoosM was arguing that it was done on a film set, and he claimed that the 'director' decided it was:

Better to keep them shuffling low to the ground and come up with a reason for it. Just like in 2001. Before Apollo everyone expected people on the moon to be able to leap and bound several feet into the air.

Yet now, FoosM tells us it would be difficult to move around in that suit...

So that means of course that he was WRONG earlier. And has now seen the light. But of course you don't need to worry about that, because in a page or two, he will circle back to his original stuff.

Readers will note that the Apollo deniers never stop on any topic. They will not pause and fully debate the intricacies of anything, even though an environment that is completely alien to our own is being examined. They need to keep moving on to the next, then the next, then, after enough time has elapsed, restart the entire ridiculous process.

Well, FoosM, I think it's about time to start examining your performance on this thread, in detail. Are you ready for what is next? I've got quite a few questions for you to answer, too - but let's just see how ppk55 goes, first.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join