Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Josephus23

What good is a series of catastrophic failures, including a destroyed launching facility, for propaganda? We didn't even know about the failures until glasnost.

Wouldn't it have been better propaganda to let the Amerikanskis die in space while the USSR, with its superior technology sat back any wisely said, "No. It cannot be done!" They didn't say that, did they?

Wouldn't it have been better to expose the hoax? They didn't do that, did they?

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


One day the world will realize that the individuals who were the leaders in Russia...

Were all funded by the American War Machine (Rome).

Did the people of Russia believe that they had an enemy?

Of course they did. They were told that America was the enemy.

Did the people of America believe that we had an enemy?

You betcha. Them godless commies.

But this was all a ruse.
The best way to mobilize a group of people is to convince them that they have a common enemy.
And then... Let the killing begin.

Just as America has willingly let its own people die for the bigger picture.
(Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Katrina, USS Liberty, etc...)
The USSR was no different.

But what is the #1 rule in the art of war when conquering a nation?

Never kill the leaders.

Because they are all working for the same entity.

The Roman Empire.

The entire point to ALL of the space race was the militarization of space.
That's it.

Wanna make a bet that we will probably never go back to the moon with people?
(at least not in the public eye)
EVER...................

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Josephus23


You, sir (or madam) are woefully misinformed....

The Russians knew that a trip to the moon was impossible.

Nope. Read a few books on the subject. Read about what the 'players' of the day thought...the Cosmonauts. Look it up.

They were aware of the radiation dangers before the US.

Oh, you just make stuffup!!

I mean they did beat us to orbit.

You referring to Sputnik? Or Yuri Gagarin?

Actually, if you wish to be precise, it was really, really close as to the FIRST HUMAN in orbit (or sub-orbital). Alan Shephard was ready to go, but there were problems with the "Atlas" rocket that was supposed to loft Mercury. Several un-manned test launches weren't very promising, as they BLEW UP!

There were many successful Redstone launches, but it didn't have the 'oomph' needed. BUT, because it WAS more reliable, it was chosen for Shephard's Mercury 7 sub-orbital response to the USSR, and Gagarin.

Finally, Shephard was sent up on the Redstone

They beat us to a satellite.

Actually....you need to do some more research. The USA was NOT going to reveal, in the 'cold war" era, their ability to launch ICBMs....there was the "public" NASA, and there was the "top-secret" bit....

They beat us to a manned space mission.

Oh, come on! Gagarin spent a total of 108 minutes on orbit. Fact is, he landed and lived to tell. At that point, YES....the USSR was (apparently) 'ahead'....

Heck, they beat us on just about everything.

OH...."us"???

No....again, woefully misinformed. You should read about the USSR's "accomplishment" when they claimed the 'first spacewalk'....

The Cosmonaut almost didn't make it. They did not plan for the way the spacesuit would continue to expand, AFTER the Cosmonaut exited the spacecraft.

Think of the "Michelin Man"....(an exaggeration, for effect).

The capsule's (spacecraft's...and this applies to the Soviet, and to the American as well) hatches were terribly small, only as big as needed for ingress, on EARTH! On the launchpad!

NO one took into account (for they had no previous experience) the unexpected effects.

Gene Cernan talks about HIS experience, as well. WHEN he flew Gemini 9. HE did the "spacewalk", and the profile was to test a prototype MMU device ('MMU' is 'Manned Maneuvering Unit'....similar to what we have now, but back then, was a "strap-on" device....long story...)

Anyway, he had difficulties while on EVA, and as time ran out, HAD to re-enter the spacecraft....only to find (since he had no way to compare notes to the Russian Cosmonaut) found that HE had the same difficulty getting back in. (He never got a chance to talk to Ed White, the FIRST American to do an 'EVA' on orbit...)

Cernan's description sounds painful, because it was....he had difficulty getting back in, but with help from Tom Stafford (CDR) inside pulling on him, and a slight de-pressurizaiton of his suit....he FORCED his way in, painfully, so that the hatch could be closed, and the first ratchet engaged...THEN he endured his bent neck pain as the hatch was cranked closed....ONLY after the hatch was secured, and the capsule (spacecraft) could be re-pressurized, could he relax from that uncomfortable, bent positon, and fully slide down into the proper place, in his "seat'.

The rest of your post, is unmitigated nonsense:

Except the MOON.

The N1 rocket that they created was akin to the "Space Shuttle" that they created.
It was all propaganda.

I wish you'd actually go read a few real books on the subject.

So far you appear to be less than educated on the topic.



[edit on 3 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Josephus23


Phage already found this data but i'm going to requote it because you never adaqutely answered, you hopped around the issue.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The effective dose of radiation was 0.12 mSv, this is 0.012 rem, or to put it in english 12 millirem (mrem), a mrem is one thousanth of a rem. Now the accepted safe dose is around 100 mrem in a year, (this figure varies slightly between countries). A dose higher than this is not necessarily deadly, doses of up to 200 mrem may produce flu like symptoms.

So the astronauts could stay on the Moons surface for 8 days without exceeeding the safe limit. This is of course not taking into account shielding of a lander as it is quite unlikely they will be standing outside 24 hours a day for 8 days.

Your idea of radiation killing the astronauts has been thoroughly disproven. As for your argument that NASA wouldn't launch astronauts when they didn't know the danger, well the political battle at the time made it worth it. This wasn't simply a mission to explore, in fact exploration was a minor point to the politicians. It was all about beating russia and giving the american people something to be proud of, something to hold over the russians and indeed communism as a whole.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by verylowfrequency

 

Hi Mate

3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?

Lasers can bounce return signals off the lunar surface recent evidence of this is the LROC. many probes have been sent to the surface by many countries and may have placed them as well as scientific probes.

4. No crater? If you use this argument then i ask where is the large dust cloud as the pod lands? If you want a crater you need dust and none appears. This suggests that they either cut the engines before landing (official explanation) or that the particles, being jagged and existing in minimal gravity simply were thrown up and then sank back onto the surface rather quickly.

The area in the related image has no residue impact stature I have to agree with the said finding.

5. The user comments about the astronauts not jumping higher than 12 inches, is it not possible they feared jumping to hard? I know that if i were on the Moon i would take things a little easy. Bouncing yes, messing around sure, trying my absolute best to jump as high as possible? No.

They weren't worried about jumping to high and being sent off in the outers of space they were worried the control wires holding them up in the the suits the wore in the image he relates to Id say..
The Astronauts who did go to the Moon their suits were a few hundred pounds and with most of the weight was in the backpack area, jumping too high would throw the center of gravity way off. So you could imagine them going ass up on their backs.

6. His comments ragarding the light are ignorant at best. The sun is relfecting in all directions upon the surface and so would reflect Aldrins visor, further as Armstrong was facing him then Armstrong would be relfecting light toward Aldrin. Indeed this is the same argument for all reflections upon the faceplate.

Not quite his arguments regarding light are quite spot on in this instance


Thanks

Ocker

[edit on 3/5/2010 by ocker]

Originally posted by ocker

Lasers can bounce return signals off the lunar surface recent evidence of this is the LROC. many probes have been sent to the surface by many countries and may have placed them as well as scientific probes.

You will find someone asked me pretty much this same question and it was easily answered. The initial bounces of lasers off of the lunar surface were inexact and the returned signals were terribly scattered. Now we can consistently bounce a laser and get a more powerful return signal. Of course lots is still scattered simply because of the distance involved.

Originally posted by ocker
They weren't worried about jumping to high and being sent off in the outers of space they were worried the control wires holding them up in the the suits the wore in the image he relates to Id say..
The Astronauts who did go to the Moon their suits were a few hundred pounds and with most of the weight was in the backpack area, jumping too high would throw the center of gravity way off. So you could imagine them going ass up on their backs.

I didn't mean they were scared of shoting off into space, merely that jumping high in such low gravity with the stuff they were wearing could mean they end up landing on their backsides and hurting themselves.

Originally posted by ocker

Not quite his arguments regarding light are quite spot on in this instance

Thanks

Ocker

[edit on 3/5/2010 by ocker]

I watched the video and it just reminded me of Mythbusters, they showed a signal light source can be reflected to make it seem as if the shadows show multiple light sources.

I'll 2nd this comment. Why not use exactly the same reliable technology and just make minor improvements using today's tech ?

I mean if it's not broke ....

Originally posted by Josephus23
Why are NASA's scientists so worried about radiation NOW?
They apparently used very little, if any, protection back in the day.
Why not just use more of the same type of protection that we used back then?

THAT WAS USED IN 1968.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ocker


Hey that bit is exactly the one I commented on page 2. That 'expert' claims that she can tell that the ground isn't tilted because of the relative sizes of different rocks. I mean really my soul really did die just a little. Also the claim that there would have to be 2 or more light sources is totally hilarious. Where's the other shadows and highlights from these then?

it's funny how people give credit to the "experts" JW contacted. I mean c'mon how "expert" are they, all the experts I saw on his videos where that lady which obviosly was no expert on anything...and the guys/gals he interview in the street... oh yeah and some of his expert friends!!!!

I challenge you non-believers and followers of the JW cause to point out the most relevant things you think he brought up, and then we can discuss it here and prove them wrong as we have been doing till now.

which one you want to start with??

[edit on 3-5-2010 by hateeternal]

Originally posted by ocker
He has also had included input from professionals in photography

NO, he has simply plagiarised and reworded claims made by other long debunked hoax-believers like David Percy - they have NO professional training in the type of photography at issue or, more importantly, photogrammetry. Indeed some of the photographic claims made by Percy and repeated in JW's videos are absolutely HILARIOUS. There's one in particular...

Anyway, you just made the claim - that he had 'professionals in photography' assisting him - so please NAME THEM. Then NAME the particular segment which convinced you they were 'professional' findings.

In other words, kindly stop the meaningless handwaving.

Second I never said you have lacked comments in regard to his videos what are you the voice for others now?

But you lamented the lack of comments - do you need me to quote you? I have offered to do the same for other selected videos, but neither you nor Exuberant seem to be brave enough to name your most convincing example - does this indicate you are perhaps not informed enough to comment? There's no shame in that by the way.

So why not just name your favorite, admit you might be wrong about his conclusions, and then listen to what transpires? I mean, if JW is correct, then the truth will easily survive. If he is NOT, then that will be revealed too. Isn't that what this forum is about?

I seen the post you have put forward and I agree that the flag video he put together is not a good argument and congratulate you on a good post.

I genuinely thank you for that honest concession. But again, I would ask you to name the best one you have seen, the one that REALLY is convincing to you.

[lack of links or citations]
I disagree with you on as he stated in the video where he got the film

That's not what I mean, everyone can find the original videos. Think back to my comments - the main point of that video was static effects, but did he explain his choice of materials (recall I gave a link to explain how important that is, and how ridiculous his choices were?). Did he even mention what effect air has in the equation?

and If you looked at some of his others he always without fail includes the book, Site, or Film or news paper he is referring to for his information presented.

As I said above, that's not the sort of citation I am referring to - I mean the ones to support his 'demonstrations' and 'assertions'.

And you do realise why he is so careful nowadays? He got badly busted for misusing copyright on Youtube under a previous identity. He has a careful spin on that now, but I suggest you research carefully what he ACTUALLY did, not what he now *tells you* he did.

[He uses completely inappropriate 'analogies' and 'demonstrations']
How does he do this inappropriately ? is this your opinion from the flag video?

Of course it is. Like I said, his static electricity demo was completely inappropriate. He 'emulates' a nylon flag and a space suit in a vacuum with a rubber balloon and a flag of unspecified material in air, under unknown conditions? Give me a break.

You by the sound of it have made your mind up on the one video you watched in which I agreed .

I'm glad you agreed, as it truly is GARBAGE. But I did carefully watch the video and analysed it *properly*. If you dispute some part of it (and it appears you don't), then you need to say what you think was wrong.

But.. maybe he has some good ones? I'm ready to be convinced that he can do better. That's why I am asking for nominations. I'm not going to wade through his collection of 366 videos on the offchance that any of them will be better.. I've viewed about 5, and I'm sorry, but even the best I saw was little better than the flag example.

The said 6 reasons were put forward by no other than ERIC JONES
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal editor
history.nasa.gov...

Yes, I know that was pointed out in the video. It doesn't mean they are absolutely comprehensive - I can think of one more at least (even though it is very unlikely..). Can you?

I think we all have noticed your pattern here

Ooh, I love innuendo. If I have a pattern, it should be a simple matter to point it out, and show where the flaws are. But in fact it seems you agree with my conclusion about the flag video. How strange...

So, like I said, tell us which one is the proverbial smoking gun.

Then, after I've posted my review, you (or someone) will be able to easily shred me with superior knowledge. But gee, what happens if after you read my review on the best one, you realise that I was right about it too? Don't worry, that could NEVER happen, surely...


PS - I note you have just posted a link to something regarding lighting/shadows? Is that a goodun, you think? Before answering, please note that photography, lighting, imaging and photogrammetry are my special subjects! You should of course know that from my 'pattern'..

By the way, I have limits - I'm willing to analyse maybe TWO more videos only. So choose wisely...


PPS - kudos to you, ocker, for at least discussing *some* of the issues...

reply to post by ocker


Hey Ocker Check these images out.

Here is an animation of some strange lights moving across the lunar surface. You can even see them actually illuminating craters and parts of the lunar surface which are in darkness.

I haven't read about a spotlight being part of the mission... Who knows right? Space is a vacuum, so that probably negates the need for a delicate bulb, and a spotlight could be made to look like a communications dish. The public don't need to know about this sort thing, so they probably weren't told. (After all, during Apollo the public wasn't made aware of the fibre-optics and other image/video capabilities, but those existed and were used.)

...But Maybe what we are seeing here is not a spotlight, but that model of the moon at Langley being hit by an errant light:

Here are the links to gif and images used to make it. Thanks internos for putting this animation together :



Get the images here:









[edit on 3-5-2010 by Exuberant1]

Regarding those images with the 'splodges' (that's a technical term ), here's a gallery from whence they can be easily browsed (scroll to the bottom):
www.lpi.usra.edu...

(That is the BEST site for a quick browse through the Apollo images by magazine, in thumbnail form, but sadly it doesn't have the highest resolution images - you have to go elsewhere for those. Can't have everything in one place I s'pose...)

Anyway, I digress. According to NASA (and we believers..) these images were taken through a window of the Apollo CM. They were taken on a Hasselblad 70mm camera, using an 80mm lens (roughly equivalent to a 50mm in 35mm terms).

Now using that camera/lens, up close to the window, with the Sun obviously beaming in from the left hand side, anything on the window would be lit up brightly, and it would be significantly out of focus. Just like the splodge... Or it could be a reflection from some object within the craft.

Now any experienced photographer can look at such a 'splodge', and pretty quickly tell you if it is a genuine 'spotlight' effect, or if the object is just something out of focus in the foreground - I'm sorry, but this one is very obviously just something out of focus in the foreground.

If it was a spotlight effect, why is it on the wrong side? If you are a denier, then you would still have to concede the main 'floodlight' (us believers call it The Sun) is left and 'low', and if they used two - THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE SHADOWS. Trust me on this one, if you were trying to light the lunar landscape realistically, there is NO WAY that you would use more than one flood, even one light will give you major headaches...

And...
Why is it moving so much, yet not affecting any other areas?
Where are the shadow effects corresponding to its shape?
Why (indeed HOW??) would they make a spotlight with such an irregular (and changing) shape?
Why does it move so much across the landscape, and change as the camera angle changes? (- exactly as it would if it was something on the window)
Why do you claim it lights up the craters, when it clearly does NOT illuminate the dark areas within the craters? (it just adds overall lightness, exactly as a reflection or lit-up smudge on the window would)


Anyway, if you want to believe it is an extra spotlight 'gone crazy', despite it not looking in any way like one, go for it.

But feel free to give any plausible reason why it *isn't* a reflection smudge on the window, first.


If it quacks like a duck...
Ockham's Razor...
etc..

It's also worth posting the thread from which the Internos animation came, I think (I wonder why exuberant didn't?), so here it is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I love the bit about the images being 'classified'..

To explain the various anomalies, late in that thread, Internos himself stated:
"These apparent "balls of light" have been almost always explained as reflections, and even in this case it looks to be the most compelling explanation"
.. and then the last posting by 'Anonymous ATS' agreed with my theory:
"keep in mind that many (or most) of these photos were taken through the windows... these cloudy "objects" that seem to drift in-between photos are likely out-of-focus reflections from lights and objects inside the LM or CSM. if you are focusing on the moon, your lens is at infinity... so the lighted dial behind you is out-of-focus at a mere three feet away. "


Really, Exuberant - shouldn't you be posting this stuff on THAT thread?

[edit on 3-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by CHRLZ


Your 'out of focus in the foreground' theory is not applicable to these images and does not account for the lights illuminating the alleged lunar surface.

But you already know that, don't you?


*So have you bothered to contact Jarrah White to issue your 'direct' challenge yet? Surely your direct challenge consists of more than an ATS post....

If you did contact him (and one should always contact someone when claiming to directly challenge them), what was the gist of his reply?




[edit on 3-5-2010 by Exuberant1]

What's happening with this CHRLZ ?
Just wondering.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
If you don't watch the videos you won't be able to debunk them.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
What, all 366 of them? It seems no-one on this thread is qualified to debate with you then.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
'Exhibit D' spans at least 12 videos.

Actually it's quite easy to do a youtube search for 'exhibit d moon''.
It's the first one that comes up.
Here's the link
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ppk55]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Your reply is loaded with ad hominem attacks mate, you've tried to veil it with supposed genuine questioning but have failed miserably.

That is why they are all highlighted to back up what you say here....?

Hmmm. OK, your post is loaded with personal attacks and insults. You have tried to veil it with spreading information but you have failed miserably. I did not realize we could just make empty accusations about each other and get stars for them even though there is nothing to back it up. Good to know!

So, if all I am doing is attacking you instead of asking questions - why take the time to respond with answers? What are you answering? I see no answers to insults here? Are you answering questions? That cannot be because you just said I failed miserably at posing my attacks as questions.

So can you explain to me what this post is all about? What are the answers that are below in response to?

Clearly you haven't bothered looking into what I've been saying, instead you've just concentrated on baiting me into silly arguments about why NASA couldn't or didn't send robotic probes instead of humans.

What do you want me to look at, exactly. I do not see what I am missing but maybe you can clear that up. You have not presented a valid argument. I am sorry about that but it is your fault and not mine. Just because I argued against what you said using the information you provided is no reason to lash out like this.

If I have not looked into anything, please share with me what I need to know.

So let's bring this back to the facts.

NASA collected 382 kilograms compared to Russia's 326 grams.

Three unmanned probes were able to collect 326 grams of soil samples, that is roughly an average of 108 grams per mission.

So going by the argument that NASA could have easily sent probes to collect these samples, they would of had to send (roughly off the top of my head) 3500 individual unmanned missions of similar size to the Luna missions to the moon.

No.

I guess this is what you see as an ad hom or attack because I can only point out the flaw in your logic there.

If we used the exact same probes as them, then sure that makes sense. Did we? Following your logic, when did they land men on the moon again? It would have had to be pretty close to when we did since we had the exact same technology, right?

Here is what you are trying to get me to believe. We were so far ahead of them that we could safely send people to the moon and back but we could not have built bigger and better probes.

I would be happy to believe that makes sense if you can prove to me it is true. Can you?

Then there are the rocks, most of which weigh more then the combined weight collected by the three Luna missions.

The logistics and costs of sending 3500 missions to moon would be astronomical!

Yeah, if we were using the Russian probes you would have a point.

Even 1000 missions is ludicrous.

So we're left with two ways on how NASA came about 382 kgs of moon rock.

1. They did actually collect these samples whilst on the moon.

2. The 382kgs is actually earth based and all of the peer reviewed papers and analysis's carried out by scientists all over the world (including Russia) have been faked.

Let me try this again...

um...no.

You have failed to explain why there could not have been option #3- We built way bigger probes.

See the pattern emerging here, yet?

You then have to factor the 48kgs of lunar meteorites found all over the world, these too show the same characteristics as the Apollo rocks.

Can you see why this is a huge thorn in the side of the moon hoaxer fans?

Yes, I can see why you ignoring the logic presented by your own argument would be a thorn in anyone's side.

Just to throw a few more thorns in, I'll leave you with a couple of research papers for your perusal:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Awesome. I will wait until you can even refute what I said a little bit and stop accusing me of crap for no reason before moving on to something new.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Your 'out of focus in the foreground' theory is not applicable to these images.
But you already know that, don't you?

Do you think this sad repetition of mantras and completely content-free assertions, is winning the debate?

Be SPECIFIC. WHY EXACTLY IS IT NOT APPLICABLE - is this the first medium format camera that doesn't have limited depth of field using an 80mm? Would you like to quote some d-o-f calculations? - yes, tell us all about your knowledge of 'circles of confusion' and how it pertains - what is the hyperfocal distance and why is it important? All that, especially the circles of confusion, should be right up your alley... From those calculations you can determine exactly how out of focus it should be for various distances - so do come back when you have some actual information?

And why doesn't your supposed 'spotlight' throw shadows on the terrain?


You seem to be having a continuing problem with VERY selective reading skills.


By the way, you are not doing your research very widely. Jarrah is well aware of the 'direct' challenge. See if you can work out how I know that..

Thanks for playing, though.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Your 'out of focus in the foreground' theory is not applicable to these images and does not account for the lights illuminating the alleged lunar surface.

But the lights don't illuminate the lunar surface. Where are the shadows? And why are these alleged lights only on three frames? Why the irregular and shifting shape if they are spotlights? Have you never tried to take a photograph through a window? You often get reflections like this.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Mate
Here is the image getting analyzed again her name is in the video .


the other one that stands out to me is the early release of the mission to an Australian news Paper


Ha Ha wow you have really got on ya horse

You Said

(proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?)

I told you it was Eric Jones you said

Yes, I know that was pointed out in the video

well you were on a defensive straight away JM was trying to debunk Erics Suggestions for the Flag movement.
Eric was not another proposer as you put Him You tried to skip that one over.
you can think of one more well good for you Go tell ERIC JONES

I don't really know what the big deal is to you anyways .

I have thought some of his theory's were interesting he had a good case with his presentations ,Nothing wrong with that is there,I said NASA went to the Moon .
I just have noticed a problem with some of the images and are not getting into a debate with you about them as they have been battered to deaf in other threads.

But in fact it seems you agree with my conclusion about the flag video. How strange...

LOL now you are getting ahead of yourself your conclusion ..get your hand off it .I had come to the same conclusion on my own without the assistance of you..And why would you find that strange?
And why have you linked me with Exuberant twice with your posts

Have I ever debated over topics with you before which included Exuberant1

Answer NO

So who ever is sending you U2Us linking me to Exuberant is a trouble maker and is how trolls get their name.

I didn't even know Exuberant1 was on this thread until you commented on it, I missed his posts on pages 15 and 16

I have commented on what I feel I need to, you have asked for the smoking guns as I see I have presented to you the ones I find of interest..

You seem to be pushing for trouble with your attacks which I will not be getting into and derailing this thread .

Ocker

Wow, impressive. Thank you for sharing this.

what a brilliant guy= He cant change the FACT that we have been on the moon though