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: 303
377
<< 300  301  302    304  305  306 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Yes, this one has been debunked already: ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD!!! I can guaranty you that every single issue, save one, that has been raised in the past 100 pages has been discussed at least twice in the previous 200 pages. I submit that if Jarrah's supporters cannot refute the charges that he has intentionally lied, censored the findings of others and has used blatant propaganda techniques in support of a misanthropic agenda, he be declared a known hoaxer, At the very least, this latest attempt by Jarrah's supporters to ignore or deflect the issue at hand by attempting to return this thread to issues adequately discussed earlier provides strong reason for this thread to be closed.

(Note: A more recent discussion of the "Crater Gambit" on this thread can be foundhere. There are at least one or two more examples of this gambit being brought up on this thread.)




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
.

Here is what I like about Jarrah... contrary to what some NASA lovers will have you believe, not only does young Jarrah admit to making mistakes, but he also creates quite cool video rebuttals to the criticisms of his films.


Examples please?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 





Why you no like Foo?


I don't like disingenuous, pretentious, dishonest people.



So the proof of the LM comes from... NASA !! Surprise, surprise.


Evidence is evidence, regardless of its source. You might want to check and see if JW and others use the same source I just have.
You can't falsify what I've posted with evidence of your own. You can't provide your reasoning for dismissing all NASA data out of hand. Surprise indeed.




And you Smack, stoop to using enhanced YouTube videos as proof of your beliefs... ok! Each to their own.


No. I use this video because those with a modicum of wit can see the truth of it. It was my mistake, I suppose, for not holding your hand and walking you through the steps necessary to find the information for yourself. I should have pre-chewed it and framed it in grammar school terms so you could understand it.
Belief ≠ Proof - Learn this.


Smack your bottom for having a shuttered brain.


….sigh.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Huh?


I don't believe Jarrah is intentially trying to decieve people.


You weren't paying attention? Have you already forgotten the SOLID evidence of deception that DJW unearthed, on just the "radiation" issue alone?? DO you think that boy (claims he's a "genius") actually used the wrong chart "accidentally"?? The chart that was clearly labelled as "unshielded" values for radiation in the VABs....do you also think he did not read the entire source, where he found that data, and did NOT see the other chart (shielded values)?? The fact that the shielded values blew his entire "radiation made it impossible" claim out of the water....doesn't that whole episode stick in your craw, at all??


And, that was just the most recent discovery of his deceit. It started WELL back in the very beginning, with his outright lie about the woman who he claimed was a photographic perspective expert. She wasn't and isn't and....has admitted it publicly!


Just two examples, pointed out in this very thread. I have offered up some very, very good YouTube videos by user "PhilWebb59" (You watch any of them yet??) that clearly demonstrate other cases of more "Jarrah White" misinformation, omission and disingenuousness. It is rampant, throughout his entire series of videos...and is undeniable.....


Speaking of undeniable. The photographic evidence of the Apollo landing sites is conclusive. NO amount of desperate hand-waving will alter those facts.

Once again, for clarity and factual emphasis:


All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad. This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R. Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.


......From YouTube poster's comments. Feel free to verify authenticity.



The process that is discounted by the "HB"s (hoax believers) is called 'deconvolution'. Nothing is added, nor "photoshopped" in. This is a mathematical process that increases resolution of an image based on algorithmic calculations.

Read the technical details HERE, and then come back and provide a rebuttal as to why and how it is invalid, or invalidates the images seen in the video above.


Here is a video examination of LROC images of the Apollo 17 landing site, and equipment left behind:



Compare to the ACTUAL film from the 1971 liftoff of the Lunar Module (LM) ascent stage (This is from the DAC - Data Acquisition Camera - that was mounted in the LMP's window. IN this case, the YouTuber "LunaCognita" re-oriented the scene to more closely resemble the Lunar Module Pilot's, and the Commander's, eye-line point-of-view, as they stood at their flight positions):



For added orientation for those unfamiliar with the details of Apollo, this image is a line drawing depicting the interior forward view of the LM ascent module, and crew capsule:



The "DAC" is labelled "Sequence Camera" in that depiction....in the right-hand (LMP's) window.


Any questions??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding, from the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal resource communications transcripts (found in the section indexed as "Return to Orbit"), (with some sidebar commentaries added) for part of what is on the soundtrack of the DAC film launch sequence:


188:00:34 Schmitt: One minute coming up, Gene.

188:00:38 Cernan: Take your final look at the valley of Taurus-Littrow, except from orbit. (Pause) Okay, one minute, Houston. We're 50 seconds now, and we're Go.

188:00:51 Fullerton: Roger. You're looking good here.

188:00:55 Schmitt: I'll get that (camera) at 30.

188:00:57 Cernan: Okay. (Pause)

188:01:10 Schmitt: Camera's not going to run without me holding it.


It seems there was a problem with the "ON" button for the camera....had to be held in position. I assume that Jack Schmitt's hands were busy elsewhere, for the actual lift-off, and it was later, as you can see in teh fim footage, that he had a free hand to hold the camera "ON"....



188:01:20 Cernan: Okay. Average G, 20 seconds.

[Cernan - "This was a routine in the PGNS to start recording data from the accelerometers."]
188:01:23 Schmitt: Ah, shoot!
188:01:25 Cernan: Okay. Now, let's get off. Forget the camera. (Garbled)...

188:01:27 Schmitt: Ten seconds.

188:01:28 Cernan: ...10 seconds.

188:01:29 LM Crew: Abort Stage.

188:01:30 Cernan: ...pushed. Engine Arm is Ascent.

188:01:32 Schmitt: Okay. I'm going to get the Pro. (Pause) 99 Proceeded 3, 2, 1...
188:01:39 Schmitt: Ignition.

[Schmitt - "As I recall, at the moment of ignition, all we had was static - loud static. And I was looking to see what happened, to see if I'd lost lock."]
[Cernan - "Jack spent half of the lift-off trying to get comm back."]

[Schmitt - "And I remember somebody telling me that what had happened was that they had a site handover scheduled right at lift-off! And nobody caught it."]


[Jack's memory is not quite accurate, although the problem was, in part, due to procedures on the ground. The following has been extracted from the Apollo 17 Mission 5-Day Report: "On lunar module ascent, two-way lock with the lunar module transponder was lost. This resulted in a 4-minute loss of uplink voice, and tracking data during ascent. It was necessary to have the Command Module Pilot pass comments from the ground to the lunar module crew during this period. The initial loss of lock was attributed to attenuation by the lunar module (engine) plume. Communications should have been re-established in less time (than 4 minutes). A review of data indicates that a normal re-acquisition by Goldstone should have been attempted earlier. Approximately 4 minutes after lunar module lift-off, a normal re-acquisition was accomplished."]

[According to Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham in his book "The All-American Boys" Gene's last words on the Moon were "Let's get this mother out of here." During the mission review in Santa Fe, Gene was surprised not to hear those words but what seems likely is that what he was remembering was his "Now, let's get off." at 188:01:25 and that, in later tellings, the wording changed to the more colorful version Cunningham quotes. I have discussed this matter with Andrew Chaikin, who is another aficionado of the audio tapes, and we agree on the interpretation given here. My thanks to William Bianco for reminding me about this issue.]

188:01:40 Cernan: We're on our way, Houston!
188:01:43 Schmitt: Rates are good. AGS saw it (that is, the ignition). (Pause)

188:01:48 LM Crew: Pitchover!

188:01:51 Fullerton: Roger. You have good thrust. (Pause) ....








edit on 8 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Other You Tubers have completed some excellent LRO comparison videos. The one I like best is from Astrobrant matching up Apollo 11. Apologies if it has been posted already?



TJ



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
Other You Tubers have completed some excellent LRO comparison videos. The one I like best is from Astrobrant matching up Apollo 11. Apologies if it has been posted already?



TJ


Of course LRO pictures will match with what NASA had already produced earlier!

Again, all these images of Apollo artifacts are coming from NASA.
Not third party probes and recording devices.
This is no different than proving the existence of God or Jesus by using the Bible.
LOL.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

So when I argue about photos of the LM on the moon... the lack of blast crater... the lack of dust on LM landing feet... that's not me argueing about the landing... its about the photos.



You will find that Apollo defenders will come up with all kinds of unproven theories to explain
why there were no craters or small craters under the LM even though we I haven't managed to find
a test of a landing where a crater wasnt made:



And add to the fact that you have conflicting testimony from several astronauts claiming that they shut their engines off prior to touchdown, to not create a crater that their LM could call in, with video evidence showing that their engines shut down AFTER touchdown.

But even if you believe their theories they dont usually have an answer for the lack of dust
on the LM footpads though. Because it cant be explained, not after having soooo much testimony of dust
covering suits, rovers, instruments, cameras, etc.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nope. DO the research.


Again, all these images of Apollo artifacts are coming from NASA.


Guess you didn't bother to watch the video all the way through? Not surprising.

LRO data is open to anyone with the proper equipment. Thousands and thousands of eyes are able to closely examine the data....eyes NOT affiliated with NASA, nor even with the United States.

Hand-waving is not a good idea, if you continue it too long....might develop a joint degenerative disease...or carpal tunnel.....



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


That last post would appear to be less than honest. However, you are counting, I suppose, on the convenient fact that some videos (recent videos) of actual tests of actual designs that take-off and land vertically, using a very intense directed rocket-type thrust (NOT, by the way, similar IN ANY WAY to the engines on the Apollo LM...)....these videos, buried many pages back....you are counting, perhaps, on people forgetting them? However, as I said, you lied, because it is evident that YOU saw them, since you commented on them!!


... even though we I haven't managed to find a test of a landing where a crater wasn't made:...


Which you followed with the NASA test video. WHICH you completely misunderstand. OR, you do understand, but intentionally misrepresent....hoping that it will leave the impression (falsely) in the audience that you wish to steer them to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To save people the effort of going back through the thread, here is one example of the Armadillo Aerospace entry, for a controlled vertical take-off/landing rocket vehicle:



Note the VERY NARROW and concentrated rocket plume pattern....compare to the Apollo specifications (readily available online) and the very large engine bell nozzle design of the LM descent engine. (HINT: That will mean the force of the expelled gases are more diffuse, over larger area, and not concentrated as seen in the Armadillo video. Of course, on Earth, the gravity is a concern, six time stronger...so engine design for that demonstration is different than will ultimately be designed for the Moon).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



And add to the fact that you have conflicting testimony from several astronauts claiming that they shut their engines off prior to touchdown, to not create a crater that their LM could call in, with video evidence showing that their engines shut down AFTER touchdown.


I think you meant "fall".....but, again another distrotion of truth.
NO....it is YOU who are assigning motive to the crews' actions on the landings....in other words, YOU MADE THAT UP!

There was absolutely NO CONCERN about a "crater" after Apollo 11.....and even before A11, there was a solid understanding of the consistency of the surface....from the unmanned probes previously. Certainly the actual depth of regolith in every location could not be anticipated. Turns out on level ground, it was very analogous to hard-packed dirt on Earth....with occasional areas of looser material accumulated on top. Deeper accumulations were discovered on slopes...which also makes sense, as there are Earth equivalents. Anyone who has ever gone hiking will recognize the comparisons.



But even if you believe their theories they dont usually have an answer for the lack of dust
on the LM footpads though.


Once again....either you have a very, very short memory, or wish to re-hash information that has ALREADY BEEN COVERED in this thread. Counting, again, on the +300 pages, for it to "get lost"??

There WAS some regolith on the footpads, of course. Not enough to see in the photos, since NONE of the photos were aimed at attempting to catalog the fact. Plus, MINIMAL amounts were deposited on top, since lacking an atmosphere, there was none of the added effect of "billowing" that we are all so familiar with on Earth, in our sea of air that we live in.



Because it cant be explained, not after having soooo much testimony of dust covering suits, rovers, instruments, cameras, etc.


Disingenuous, at its finest!! Well done!!

Oh, and attempt to deflect from the OTHER topics, where "Jarrah White" has been shown, repeatedly, to be a liar and a fraud? Priceless........

edit on 8 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Not to forget the following study...
What if they indeed cut the engines of the LM and dropped it to the lunar surface?



Not pretty...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nope. DO the research.


Again, all these images of Apollo artifacts are coming from NASA.


Guess you didn't bother to watch the video all the way through? Not surprising.

LRO data is open to anyone with the proper equipment. Thousands and thousands of eyes are able to closely examine the data....eyes NOT affiliated with NASA, nor even with the United States.

Hand-waving is not a good idea, if you continue it too long....might develop a joint degenerative disease...or carpal tunnel.....


LRO is not made by NASA and the US?
It was launched by another country and not NASA?
What are you talking about?
Did it have a live feed for everyone to watch?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I seem to remember that Jarrah has also stated that he will never accept any data from any other nations, such as Japan, India etc. Jarrah doesn't trust them as they have links to the evil NASA. Even if the Chinese placed a probe next to any of the landing sites and beamed back images he still would cry fake! It shows exactly how paranoid he is.

TJ



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So, I guess we are to understand that you do not understand the concept of "testing"?

You know.....something the engineers do.....after they design, make the calculations, predict the behavior and strengths of the materials and the components and assemblies...THEN they actually test them under "field" conditions.

Eventually, they will test to destruction...to gather data, and to know for sure what the "breaking point" is....so that they can write procedures, limits, guidelines for mission profile parameters so as not to exceed safe design limits.

It's sort of a very standard thing they do....in aerospace (and other industries too...like automobiles).




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


So, I guess we are to understand that you do not understand the concept of "testing"?

You know.....something the engineers do.....after they design, make the calculations, predict the behavior and strengths of the materials and the components and assemblies...THEN they actually test them under "field" conditions.

Eventually, they will test to destruction...to gather data, and to know for sure what the "breaking point" is....so that they can write procedures, limits, guidelines for mission profile parameters so as not to exceed safe design limits.

It's sort of a very standard thing they do....in aerospace (and other industries too...like automobiles).




And we established that NASA with Apollo skipped many "field" tests for the sake of being first against the USSR? Right....

For example
LM never landed on the moon, as a field test, unless you consider Apollo 11 a test landing, lol.
Animals not used to test the "radiation shielding" of the CM and LM.
Apollo and NASA are a joke.


edit on 8-1-2011 by FoosM because: formatting



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by FoosM
 


I seem to remember that Jarrah has also stated that he will never accept any data from any other nations, such as Japan, India etc. Jarrah doesn't trust them as they have links to the evil NASA. Even if the Chinese placed a probe next to any of the landing sites and beamed back images he still would cry fake! It shows exactly how paranoid he is.

TJ


Chinese do fake their space missions.
Why would you ever use them as "proof"
LOL.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by FoosM
 


I seem to remember that Jarrah has also stated that he will never accept any data from any other nations, such as Japan, India etc. Jarrah doesn't trust them as they have links to the evil NASA. Even if the Chinese placed a probe next to any of the landing sites and beamed back images he still would cry fake! It shows exactly how paranoid he is.

TJ


Does any country have a space program that is NOT associated with NASA in one form or another.??
They do seem to have a monopoly on space..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Does any country have a space program that is NOT associated with NASA in one form or another.??
They do seem to have a monopoly on space..



Define "association" please.

Because if you are going to consider sharing meteorological data or mundane information, then yes. But that doesn't come close to being a "monopoly".



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


And add to the fact that you have conflicting testimony from several astronauts claiming that they shut their engines off prior to touchdown, to not create a crater that their LM could call in, with video evidence showing that their engines shut down AFTER touchdown.


I think you meant "fall".....but, again another distrotion of truth.
NO....it is YOU who are assigning motive to the crews' actions on the landings....in other words, YOU MADE THAT UP!

There was absolutely NO CONCERN about a "crater" after Apollo 11.....and even before A11, there was a solid understanding of the consistency of the surface....from the unmanned probes previously. Certainly the actual depth of regolith in every location could not be anticipated. Turns out on level ground, it was very analogous to hard-packed dirt on Earth....with occasional areas of looser material accumulated on top. Deeper accumulations were discovered on slopes...which also makes sense, as there are Earth equivalents. Anyone who has ever gone hiking will recognize the comparisons.




Oh Weed, why would you leave yourself open for a gut check?
I dont get it.


An example was the installation of frangible probes on the base of each foot pad to tell the crew the lander was a meter and a half above the surface and to switch off the descent motor. If the motor were still firing when the craft touched down, the engine nozzle would be damaged, landing stability might be affected, and the ascent stage might be impaired by debris kicked up by the engine exhaust.13


Take a guess which astronauts claimed to have switched their descent engines off to drop or fall the remainder of the distance to the lunar surface so not to create a crater that could swallow the LM?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why are you trying to drag this thread backwards, FoosM? You've overplayed the "Crater Gambit" already. Now please explain why you refuse to defend Jarrah White from the charges laid against him: he is a hoaxer who thinks his supporters are stupid and lazy. Are you okay with that, FoosM? Or like some of his supporters, do you believe that he really believes what he's saying but is just too dim to understand. Even your fellow Jarrah Apologists can see that you've been unable to refute the charges and are desperately trying to change the subject.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Good grief, now the Chinese are at it? Foos do you actually believe anything in manned space flight? Is life just one big conspiracy to you?

One thing that might come back to bite Jarrah on his butt? Jarrah is on the record as stating.

www.youtube.com...

Bill Kaysing stated that he would accept a view through a ground-based telescope showing the artifacts. Whatevers good enough for Kaysing is good enough for me.

Joss Hawthorn stated that they have such a powerful telescope at Gemini observatory. The VLT in Chile is also capable. So far neither of them have found the artifacts, even though Hawthorn and Richard West have said they would respectively search for the artifacts.


I'll tell you something though, Joss Hawthorn offered to find me the lunar module whence they get their adaptive optics equipment for the Gemini Observatory up and running.

letsrollforums.com...

Have the adaptive optics been activated on the observatory? If Joss Hawthorn has been accurately quoted then the technology might be ready to image the landing sites?

The big question is will Jarrah accept it? No doubt he will find some link to the evil NASA and he will trot out yet another video?

Imaging the landing sites

en.wikipedia.org...

TJ










edit on 8-1-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added

edit on 8-1-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 300  301  302    304  305  306 >>

log in

join