Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...am going to analyze that video....
So FAR....I get her saying (as part of how she introduces herself)..
"I am Jenny Hiller, and I am a visual arts teacher at...."
....and that this point, maybe it's her accent, but I don't quite catch the "University", or "facility" that she mentions....

I watched the video, but I am a bit reticent to continue with a full critique... The reason? I would really like to ask the 'expert' a few pertinent questions about her analysis. And, that *may* be possible...!

I'll confess at first I thought this must be a setup, as the information she gives is missing some very basic facts, like the effect of a using a wide angle lens, how shadows fall across uneven terrain, umbral/penumbral effects, and of course the whole multiple shadows thing. If someone truly understands perspective in the real world of photography and in a photogrammetric sense, rather than just the basic concepts of vanishing point as it applies to your average painting, then you realise that these factors are vitally important.

Now, because this appears to be a real person, I believe that they should be given the opportunity to explain their conclusions (before I get too harsh with a critique.. ) So I listened carefully to the beginning of the video and then did a quick bit of common sense guessing and googling...

..And discovered that she is 'Jenny Heller', apparently a real person who works at the "Eora Centre". That's an indigenous teaching centre that is part of TAFE in NSW, Australia.

I should point out that TAFE colleges are *not* a university - it's an Adult & Further Education system that offers some certificate and diploma level courses, along with lots of what might best be termed 'low-level' special interest classes - you know "Painting Landscapes for Seniors", that sort of thing. I should know, I used to work for them at both ends of the scale - Diploma and low-level! (Teaching astronomy amongst other topics..)

Now I don't know at what level Ms Heller is qualified, but I have very serious doubts she has any photogrammetry experience whatsoever, judging by that video. I'll profusely apologise if proven wrong.

Anyway, I'm trying to track down an email address to ask her about the context of this interview.

Maybe.. Maybe Not, are you around? Isn't Sidunny one of your stamping grounds? Perhaps we can employ you full time doing roving interviews... I can't afford a donation, but I wonder what ATS' budget is like?

Anyway, if anyone wants to look deeper than me, and provide a way to contact Ms Heller.... Maybe even invite her over... I'll try to be gentle...

So I'll hold back on my review for a while, but I'm afraid it's not going to be very positive.. The rebuttal videos shown thus far are pretty much spot on (nicely found, hateeternal).

LOL but people would believe a piece of lint caused a smear on a photo?

Many Moons ago, WWu777 said...
..Are you kidding? It [the LM simulator, or 'LLRV'] couldn't perform at all on Earth..

Can't help noticing that this was the very last post from the OP, WWu777.

I would remind him that I'm still waiting for him to research the actual number of successful flights made by the LLRV. It's quite easy to find. Then he can explain his strange comment "It couldn't perform at all on Earth."

Not that I would suggest he finds this topic embarrassing, oh no - but it does seem strange that he hasn't been back since.

reply to post by Derised Emanresu


So...

I get anywhere between 6 and 9 nine people now who seem adamant to attempt and prove my point wrong.

And for some odd reason all of these same people have 5-8 stars beside all of the "Josephus is wrong" comments.

You see... I am using inductive reasoning to intuit that the same people who seem intent on trashing me are all patting one another on the back and starring each other's comments, like the comments have some relevance.
And then you all act like you just killed a deer a brought it home for dinner. (Troglodytes used to do that)

Inductive reasoning is the same type that I used to show that these supposed "moon landings" are most likely a HOAX.

Btw....

I can say ciao a million times if I so choose.

I mainly like to do it because...

It is funny to watch you guys get so annoyed.

It only betrays the fact that you are all a bit freaked out that your official storyline might not make a lick of sense.

Peese.

reply to post by Josephus23

Peese.

I am a big proponent of whirled peese. Or is it World Peace? Might be World Peas.....no, it is "Whirled Peas!" (yum)

gee.....'Joe' (can I call you 'Joe'?)
I am detecting a WEE bit of paranoia, in that post.

Let's see if I can correct your various misconceptions, as relates to "neutron radiation" on the Moon.

Firstly, it is vitally important to understand that ANY sort of radiation, on the Moon, is not 'radiated' from sources within the Lunar surface, meaning, there aren't sources 'buried' there, and emanating. Just as tehre really aren't any sources of natually occuring "lethal radiation" on Earth's surface, either. Everything that is 'radioactive', and injurious to life, is something that is made by Humans. Even naturally occuring uranium does not exist in sufficient quantities to be harmful --- unless exposed continually for many, many years, I suppose.


The existence of radiation on the Moon's surface, therefore, comes from outside sources --- the Sun, and cosmic radiation, for instance.

Of course, the Earth is also exposed to the very same radiation....only difference is the Earth's magnetic field, which protects us (and all life) from the majority of the exposure, and influence.

BUT, there is no way (except for an outpouring from a Solar flare, for example) this residual radiation compilation, on the Lunar surface, would be "instantly" deadly, to Humans.

THAT sort of radiation 'danger' would be cumulative, and require long-term time of exposure.

(Like, say, clinical X-ray exposure rates....or, persons who work in nuclear power plants, and such...)

It is, quite frankly, weak (and silly) to allege that the manned Moon landings were "impossible" because of this radiation concept. There have been plenty of ridiculous 'arguments' put forward by Moon "hoax" proponents, but this one is hardly worth mentioning. Science always seem to take a back-seat, when Moon "hoax" proponents try to 'sell' their baloney.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


That is all speculation.

We do not know, as I have said about a bajillion times now, what the radiation on the surface of the moon consists of.

The best that anyone can do is give me preliminary reports over an extended period of time.

And anyone with 5th grade math skills...(and I am being really lenient with the whole 5th grade thing. 2nd grade is probably more correct)

Can tell you that any average consists of a SET of numbers that can be all over the spectrum.

Over the period of a day, the radiation levels could be at times EXTREMELY high or low.

Here's another one for you.

Peast in the middle eace.

(btw... that is trademarked. So don't steal it)

The problem with this type of reasoning is that you are estimating what will happen when people aboard space-craft are exposed to such intense radiation. When you conclude that astronauts could not possibly survive, you seem to be closing your theory to the possibility of falsification. When presented with the possibility that the astronauts did survive, you do not reassess your theories--rather, you denounce the evidence as fake. This isn't the way science should work. The idea that nobody can survive the radiation in space is a theory that can only be confirmed or falsified by sending someone up there. Now, since supporters of this theory do not believe that anyone has been that far into space, they have no grounds upon which to assert the truth of their claim and the falsity of the Lunar missions. For all they know, they could be wrong and people did go to the moon and survive.

The thought that radiation would kill the astronauts on their way to the moon rests on a misunderstanding of radiation in space. It is true that the sun can release intense bursts of radiation, but not all radiation is harmful. Radiation from the sun can be measured in terms of solar particle energies. These range in intensity. The low energy particles, which measure in the thousands of electron volts, can easily be stopped by a space-craft's hull or a space suit. At the other end of the scale, the very high energy particles (over 1000 million electron volts) can pass right through a space-craft and the people on board without actually interacting with their body cells. The most dangerous particle energy level sits somewhere in the middle (in the millions of electron volts). During a solar flare, particles at all energy levels are produced and this can be very dangerous for astronauts. Fortunately, solar flares do not occur everyday and they do not send particles out in all directions.

An understanding of radiation in space shows us that an astronaut on a trip to the moon will not necessarily be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Of course, this is not to say that there are no risks. A solar flare in the wrong direction could do serious harm to an astronaut. But such flares are not everyday occurrences. Furthermore, being exposed to a high dose of radiation does not guarantee illness, cancer, or death. It merely raises the probability. It is possible for an astronaut to live a long healthy life after being exposed to radiation levels produced during a solar flare.

And...According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely...that is the main reason for nasa's worries about the radiation now. They know that it's not a real threat for a "in and out" mission, but it is crucial for long term moon explorations.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by hateeternal]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

DUDE....

You cannot use information gathered from the Apollo missions to prove that they existed.
That is circular reasoning.

Like I said....

Bring it WAY better next time.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

You've obviously never taken a class in logic.

"Circular resoning" is a logical fallacy found in the study of logic (duh). Logic itself is (very simply for these purposes) the study of arguments, what form they take, what types of arguments are fallacies and which are usuable.

The argument itself, within the framework of logic, is confined to inductive and deductive reasoning, either using observations for the former and logical consequences in the latter. Either way, logical reasoning (and argumentation theory) is limited only to premises. It is not, in and of itself, a way to study scientific method.

You seem to think that shouting "circular reasoning" ends the debate. But it only would if we were looking at the idea of going to the moon, and not the tons of data that has been recorded about space and the moon the past 60 years.

If we were debating the moon landings and I said it was impossible because the poster was a NASA shill, without giving any evidence, it would be perfectly alright to call my argument a logical fallacy, namely ad hominem. But you cannot ignore pages of evidence and declare circular reasoning becuase you don't like the results.

reply to post by Josephus23


I am sorry, but I remain stunned in awe that these posts of yours receive 'stars'....

Please (peese) for the benefit of all, from your own sourced links, point out where it is stated, in those links, that ANY of the 'neutron radiation' detected on the Moon's surface is so...."deadly". Because, your implication, here, is that this is SO MASSIVE, this radiation, that it would "instantly" kill people.

IS THIS the basis for your argument?

Seeing my point, yet?

Greetings,

Although I don't have the skills to investigate these various anomalies I have come to the conclusion that they were on the moon,BUT, They were running the holly wood script here while the crew was taking pictures of the alien ruins there. This would be a perfect cover up. I think this would also explain some of the transmission mysteries.

reply to post by GeorgeH


Interesting idea, however......

IF you bother to listen to (or read) enough of the recordings (or transcripts) then the notion of it being "scripted" becomes silly.

What you hear (or read) is way, way too obviously real, in the way that peopel can be expected to talk. WAY too real to have been "scripted", sorry.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Folks,

In this next video series 'Tracking the Tracks' and the addendum, Jarrah White examines the tracks which were allegedly imaged by the LRO, along with pointing out some other anomalies.

The video 'Tracking the Tracks' is described below:

This is the third in an ongoing series of videos in which we shall re-examine the much-hyped about Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

THE FIRST THING I SHOULD REALLY POINT OUT is that this will be the last film I release in awhile. I have some pressing matters to attend to in my offline life, meaning I will be away from Sony Vegas during that time. Still, you can bet I will have a whole heap of new films rearing to go when I get back.

In this video we'll be taking a look at the alleged bootprint tracks seen in the Apollo 12 and 14 photos taken by LRO. We'll also be analyzing Surveyor 3 seen in the LRO image of Apollo 12's landing site.




Here is what eventually happened to the surveyor 3 probe after the discrepancies regarding its orientation were noted and pointed out in the first batch of images released.... It just disappeared:







[edit on 4-5-2010 by Exuberant1]

How does Jarrah use video shot from the LM, as he freely admits numerous times in the video, as evidence we didn't go to the moon?

This is beyond insane. He takes pains to tell us where the video was shot, and then compares it to other pictures.

Talk about circular reasoning.

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Phage

 

Who cares if they knew that the neutron radiation might exist?

The point is where and how much.

See you 'til next time fan club.

Ciao.

I know wikipedia is a useless source, but look at the foot notes for this one.

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]

en.wikipedia.org...

Not sure of your point here. We have literally hundreds of satellites that operate for decades very nicely in geosynchronous and geostationary orbits (which are in the Van Allen belts) without getting their internals fried.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

reply to post by Exuberant1


I could only stand to sit ( oh, I just re-read that bit, and thought it was funny... ) through the first three minutes of the latest "JW" nonsense video....three minutes of my life that I want back.

He pats himself on the back (quite a feat) for some very, very minor compliments from his detractors. AS IF, getting ONE thing right, out of the ten thousand WRONGS he keeps spreading, some how makes it all OK...

(OH...and can some Aussies here, at ATS, tell me how you guys pronounce the word "plaid"? Here in the States we say "plad". Do most Aussies say it as "played"?)

Not to go off on what people will call a mere ad hom attack on the bloke (JW), but I think he makes enough a fool of himself, he doesn't need any of my help.....

But, when I stopped watching is the "vertical pixel columns" bit....I mean, really. Embarrasing, he is.



[edit on 4 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

I could only stand to sit ( oh, I just re-read that bit, and thought it was funny...

) through the first three minutes of the latest "JW" nonsense video....three minutes of my life that I want back.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>


But, when I stopped watching is the "vertical pixel columns" bit....I mean, really. Embarrasing, he is.



[edit on 4 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Oh, don't stop there, it gets better! As I mentioned to another post, Jarrah actually admits to us being on the moon so he can use the 16mm video shot out of the LM on takeoff to compare with other shots.

He is so deep into the conspiracy, he doesn't know where one ends and one begins.

reply to post by Josephus23


Attempt?
No, I and others have easily proven you wrong.

Those 5-8 stars are on our posts, because people are supporting our pro-Apollo arguments.

If your trying to accuse me of "banding together" with other people to give each other stars, you are incorrect. In fact, I have never given anyone a star for anything. It's not really important to me.

Implying that we are Troglodytes is an Ad Hominem attack.
Gee, weren't you complaining about people doing the same thing to you?
Hypocrite.

Inductive reasoning isn't the end-all-be-all of reasoning techniques. And you don't even have the information to make an inductive conclusion.

You would need known Lunar surface Neutron radiation counts from 1969. In order to claim that the Neutron radiation would have killed the Astronauts. You don't have that, and thus, you are unable to inductively conclude that the Apollo missions were faked due to radiation.

Your mighty Neutron radiation, can be blocked by Paraffin Wax.
Gee, I wonder if the Apollo spacesuits were built out of sturdier materials than Paraffin Wax?

I could care less whether or not you stay with or leave this topic. However you got the idea that I am annoyed by you, is wrong.

I was making such commentary to point out the fact, that you refuse to stick to your own word. Just like you refuse to stick to what your own linked sources claim.

Admitting that you are pretending to leave to annoy us, is an admission of trolling.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

We do not know, as I have said about a bajillion times now, what the radiation on the surface of the moon consists of.

The best that anyone can do is give me preliminary reports over an extended period of time.

Ah, I see.
I've shown you Lunar surface Neutron radiation maps, so now you're just lying.

I've shown you maps from 1998 and 2010, and some data in-between. So you cannot claim it's preliminary data. You obviously don't understand what preliminary means.

And it doesn't matter if these observations are just one single observation or long-term. A substances ability to shed Neutron radiation from cosmic ray's (like the Lunar surface, or a crater bottom full of ice) isn't going to significantly change over time.

To put it simply...
You (falsely) claim that we "DO NOT KNOW" the radiation condition on the Moon. And especially that we "[DID] NOT KNOW" in 1969.

You claim that NASA did not send men to the Moon, because of the lethal radiation. But they would have to "KNOW" about it, in order to avoid it.

You don't get to have it both ways, so which is it?
They knew the radiation conditions, or they didn't?

Your argument is a contradiction of itself. And thus, completely illogical.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I believe the point of the argument that you and a few others are involved in over this radiation issue has no resolve. No matter how well you, or others, present their information it is not well receive nor do I think it ever will be.

There have been great replies from several different members that are trying to correct this obvious flawed logic, or complete lack there of, in these arguments. I am grateful for these replies as it assures me that intelligence is not lost to ATS.

reply to post by hateeternal


I think your logic is falling on deaf ears, it's no fun having a conversation with someone who refuses to listen. Your contribution here is part of the reason for my previous post and I would like to add thanks for the videos from "White Noise Productions".

I have yet to express my thoughts on these videos so I would like to say that this guy does a great job. He (Astrobrant2) not only helps explain Mr. Whites points, as JW does a terrible job of this on his own, but also shows the flaws in his logic and corrects them. I find it ironic that it was after watching the "White Noise" videos from Astrobrant2 that I better understand what the MoonFaker videos are about. I suppose this means I have a hard time understanding gibberish.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by hateeternal

 

I think your logic is falling on deaf ears, it's no fun having a conversation with someone who refuses to listen. Your contribution here is part of the reason for my previous post and I would like to add thanks for the videos from "White Noise Productions".

I have yet to express my thoughts on these videos so I would like to say that this guy does a great job. He (Astrobrant2) not only helps explain Mr. Whites points, as JW does a terrible job of this on his own, but also shows the flaws in his logic and corrects them. I find it ironic that it was after watching the "White Noise" videos from Astrobrant2 that I better understand what the MoonFaker videos are about. I suppose this means I have a hard time understanding gibberish.

You see it always when arguing that one side always just ignores one sides argument and says we are right and you are wrong. Mostly skeptics are like this because they are the all knowing and have god-like intelligence and can't be proven wrong. JW has some pretty good points and some of us here have given good points, but like I stated it goes through one ear and out there other. It is fun arguing about the moon debate, but it quite gets dull after awhile. Then after us "moonfakers" tire out the skeptics say, "WE WIN!".

LOL

reply to post by dragnet53

JW has some pretty good points...

Actually, no he doesn't. He fails every time.

Just pay attention to the posts that show how BADLY he fails....