Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 304
377
<< 301  302  303    305  306  307 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Apollo supports creationism:


A Trip to the Moon

In the mid-1960s man was approaching the attainment of an age-old dream, to make a space voyage to the moon. As the long-awaited time drew near, intense excitement (as well as apprehension) grew about what might be found there. Among the most frightening aspects was our old friend— cosmic dust. Although the earth is a living planet with constant wind and water action to mix and erode surface materials, the moon is dead and sterile. As the dust from space slowly filters down onto the moon's surface, there is no erosion to wash or blow it away, so it just sits there collecting deeper and deeper. Since the scientists were convinced that the moon was at least 4.5 billion years old, this prospect of a slow but steady "snow" of space dust over that span of time gave them justifiable cause for alarm.



On the basis of certain measurements, it seemed possible that there might be anywhere from 50 to 180 feet of loosely packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface. The threat was that our manned Lunar Lander would sink down into this loose layer and never be able to blast off for the return trip to earth. Of course, all the prospects were not so grim in nature. We also wanted the first astronauts to plant the American flag on the moon. This was expected to be no problem, since it could be easily tapped down into the cosmic dust layer.



As the time of the first manned landing approached, much concern and controversy over the moon-dust problem remained. In a recent television interview, Bob Hope asked Neil Armstrong what was his greatest fear when he set that first historic foot on the moon's surface. Without hesitation Armstrong responded that his greatest fear was the moon-dust layer that scientists had told the astronauts to expect. Many precautions had been taken. Additional expensive impact probes had been sent to check for safe landing sites, and, most important of all, one very crucial addition to the landing vehicle was made. Huge duck-feet landing pods were attached to the legs of the Lunar Lander so that it would safely settle down without sinking into the theorized dust layer.



The great day came. The space vehicle roared into orbit and then out into the void. Across thousands of miles of distance it flew, finally taking position in orbit around the moon. The lander detached and, as all of earth watched, the Eagle slowly descended. July 20, 1969. Mare Tranquillitatis. "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind," said Neil Armstrong.

Testimony of the Dust

A great witness spanned out across the heavens that day as Neil Armstrong stood on the moon and tried to plant the American flag by hammering it down into the supposed billions of years of accumulated cosmic dust. Neil Armstrong hammered, but the flag would not budge, because the anticipated dust layer was simply not there. Oh, of course, it was there, but if the calculations indicating the rate of dust accumulation were accurate, there was not a billion years' worth of dust, nor was there a million years' worth of dust. There was, in fact, only a few thousand years' worth of dust on the moon's surface.


You see where this is going?


A discovery on the first moon mission PROVED, instead of disproved, God's Word. Dr. Henry Morris, a scientist who is a Bible believing Christian, said that scientists expected the moon to have about 22 feet of "moon dust" on its surface. Objects in space are said to attract cosmic "dust" at a rate determined by the density of their atmosphere and the "age" of the object. NASA scientists used a formula to determine the thickness of the moons dust, and they used so many "millions of years" for the age of the moon. If you remember, the Lunar Lander had huge flat feet, so it wouldn't sink into the "moon dust", and guess what, the feet went "clunk", in just a few inches of moon dust.

Dr. Morris then used NASA's own formula and worked it BACKWARDS with the moon's correct "inches of dust", and solved for the moon's "AGE". The astonishing answer, using NASA's own formula, was that the moon calculates to be about 7000 years old!



Oh boy...


So why were those scientists wrong about the amount of dust they expected to have accumulated on the surface? Has there been a logical explanation for it? Or is it still a mystery?


www.creationism.org...
www.biblefood.com...
edit on 8-1-2011 by FoosM because: color




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Watch the body language:




Neil Armstrong interview, BBC 1970.

He claims:
-The sky is deep black,
-The earth is the only visble object in the sky, other than the sun.

Armstrong is either instructed to lie...or he has never been on the moon!


Oh and umm... you think we can have those lunar bases built and manned
before Armstrong passes away?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Watch the body language:


Watch the evasions. Seriously, FoosM you're losing your audience. They are all waiting for you to prove that Jarrah didn't lie to them in the Radiation Anomalies video. Surely you don't intend to keep disappointing them like this. We've already done the "Body Language Gambit" and even the "Reverse Speech Gambit." Now man up: is Jarrah a hoaxer, or just too stupid to understand what he's saying? You never have answered whether you want me to critique the next video
edit on 8-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Watch the body language:


Watch the evasions. Seriously, FoosM you're losing your audience. They are all waiting for you to prove that Jarrah didn't lie to them in the Radiation Anomalies video. Surely you don't intend to keep disappointing them like this. We've already done the "Body Language Gambit" and even the "Reverse Speech Gambit." Now man up: is Jarrah a hoaxer, or just too stupid to understand what he's saying? You never have answered whether you want me to critique the next video
edit on 8-1-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


In fairness, I don't think it's Foosm's or anyone elses requirement to prove JW "didn't lie"

The "audience" as you call us, can make up our minds based on what you all say..

I will also take this chance to thank you, Nat and Tom for so politely answering my questions in U2U's..
It's much appreciated and showing me how things work without clogging this thread with already discussed issues.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Google Video Link



"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window, just after sunset, and watch the stars in the big black dome of the sky, as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10 - 15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside. It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." -Dr Kalpana Chawla, Shuttle Columbia STS-107, CSPAN interview from space "She loved looking at the Earth and at the stars. She said the stars from space are unbelievable, because it's just so much brighter." -brother of Dr Laurel Clark


The stars issue has been settled by that Neil Armstrong video.
He was asked directly if he could see stars and he said on his trip to the moon, and on the moon he could not see any. This is in direct contradiction to Shuttle astronauts who have claimed to see stars from Earth orbit!

Who is lying, the Apollo astronauts or the Shuttle astronauts?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The stars issue has been settled by that Neil Armstrong video.
He was asked directly if he could see stars and he said on his trip to the moon, and on the moon he could not see any. This is in direct contradiction to Shuttle astronauts who have claimed to see stars from Earth orbit!

Who is lying, the Apollo astronauts or the Shuttle astronauts?


I'm confused, why would you not see stars?

There are many space based cameras that take pics of stars..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
he is a hoaxer who thinks his supporters are stupid and lazy.


DJW, I think you need to calm down a little. I think you might be losing it.
Since the 1st of January your posts consist mainly of this ...


DJW posts from 1st Jan
outright lies
deception
bag of tricks
exposing him for the liar he is
He lies, distorts
outright lie
deceive his followers
caught in yet another lie
He consciously lied
deliberate and self conscious lies
the latest lies or the "classic" lies?
proven to be a liar
his lie
continues to lie
proven to be a lie
a liar
uses tricks, lies and deception
invent lies


It seems you don't like lying. Yet, just days ago, you blatantly lied to this forum and still haven't explained yourself. I'm waiting for an explanation, as I'm sure are others.

Here is your lie.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So for someone that said this of another, I would suggest it applies more to yourself.


Originally posted by DJW001
he not only refuses to correct himself but actually grows more violent in his propaganda



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


Are you talking about the fact that they didn't shut off the engine until they said "contact?"

That's because the contact light came on when the Lunar Surface Sensing Probes touched the surface. The probes are the three 6-foot things pointing down from the landing gear here:



Once they had probe contact, they cut the engine. This was a "probe mode" landing." When thrust was cut (with the LM about 5.5 feet off the surface), it takes the systems some non-zero amount of time to shut the valves, during which the reactants can still escape fromt he pressurized tanks into nozzle. This results in a small amount of thrust for at least some time when the LM drops that 5.5 feet to the surface. That means it would be falling slower than free-fall. In 1/6th gravity, and with the shock-absorbing landing gear, the landing would not be that hard.

They could also use a "pad mode" landing, where trust was not cut until the footpads had made contact. Different missions used different modes. Apollo 11 used a pad-mode landing.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



They could also use a "pad mode" landing, where trust was not cut until the footpads had made contact. Different missions used different modes. Apollo 11 used a pad-mode landing.


Nice pic..That's an evil looking LM...
But, if the LM basically fell the last 2-3 metres then I would see one of two things happening..

The legs would fold to take the landing and either the engine would hit the ground leaving a mark or the pads would skip, also leaving marks..

I don't see any marks on the ground, under the engine or near the pads in any of the pics I have looked at..
Have I miised some pics that show this?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Neil Armstrong interview, BBC 1970.

He claims:
-The sky is deep black,
-The earth is the only visble object in the sky, other than the sun.

Armstrong is either instructed to lie...or he has never been on the moon!
How many stars do you see in the daytime? On the surface of the moon, the sun is out. The earth is shining. To walk around, they had to look at the illuminated ground, which would be just as bright as the daytime ground here on earth. Their pupils were shrunk down to allow them see in these conditions, same as yours are talking outside in the sun. The stars simply aren't bight enough to see when your pupils are constricted.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



Their pupils were shrunk down to allow them see in these conditions, same as yours are talking outside in the sun. The stars simply aren't bight enough to see when your pupils are constricted.


That's true but the pics taken by their cameras don't suffer from pupil problems.
I don't see stars in them either..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



It seems you don't like lying. Yet, just days ago, you blatantly lied to this forum and still haven't explained yourself. I'm waiting for an explanation, as I'm sure are others.


Quick, without replaying the video or using the freeze frame I provided: what was the last statement in Dr. Van Allen's e-mail? Did Jarrah read it out loud? Are you sure? No, you're not. When I wrote my post, I was not interested in specific timings, I was interested in Jarrah's mind control techniques. I urge everyone to re-read this thread from this point, and ask yourself: have any of the Jarrah Defenders actually addressed any of the points raised, or have they been trying to change the subject?

Ppk, I stand corrected. I made a mistake. Jarrah showed the e-mail for a whole fifty seconds... while reading it for you. (Does he think you can't read?) Sorry. Now, answer this:



The reader should ask themselves how they personally reacted to this bombshell. Did you jump up and cheer because your white knight had finally vanquished the forces of evil? Did you decide to visit a few other websites to get a more "balanced" view? Or were you skeptical? A skeptic is someone who seeks out the facts for themselves.


The radiation argument is dead in the water, that's why the Jarrah Defenders are recycling the "Where Are The Stars Gambit."

By the way, FoosM, your assertion that NASA supports Creationism is ludicrous. At least come up with a worthy diversion!



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Actually camera lens and eyes work quite similarly. If you want to take pictures of stars on moon surface during daytime you would need to over expose hugely. Also you'd have to block the light from the ground / sun from entering the lens.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by backinblack
 


Actually camera lens and eyes work quite similarly. If you want to take pictures of stars on moon surface during daytime you would need to over expose hugely. Also you'd have to block the light from the ground / sun from entering the lens.


Thank you..To a novice it seems odd..
You see a black sky and expect to see stars..
I guess the difference is the lack of atmosphere..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I guess the difference is the lack of atmosphere..


Not really.....when the sky is "black" here on Earth, it's because it's nighttime. There is no big, bright thing in the sky...the Sun. THAT is the difference. The light levels. SO, yes ....no atmosphere (on the Moon) means that even when the Sun is in the "sky"...it's still black.

BUT, all that light, both direct and reflected, affects the exposures on the film.


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



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 



I guess the difference is the lack of atmosphere..


Not really.....when the sky is "black" here on Earth, it's because it's nighttime. There is no big, bright thing in the sky...the Sun. THAT is the difference. The light levels. SO, yes ....no atmosphere (on the Moon) means that even when the Sun is in the "sky"...it's still black.

BUT, all that light, both direct and reflected, affects the exposures on the film.


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


SO, after your first two words that say " NOT REALLY" you actually agree the difference is the atmosphere.??

I see NO logical reason for your post whatsoever..



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But, if the LM basically fell the last 2-3 metres then I would see one of two things happening..

The legs would fold to take the landing and either the engine would hit the ground leaving a mark or the pads would skip, also leaving marks..
The LM did not drop 2-3 meters. At most, it would drop 5.5 feet in a probe-mode landing, in 1/6th gravity. That would put the actual touchdown velocity at around 2.3 ft/sec (1.6 mph or 2.6 kph). Apollo 11 touched down in pad mode, so its vertical velocity was an even lower 1.7 ft/sec. The landing gear did compress, by around a total of 4 inches. Eagle had around a 2.1 ft/sec horizontal velocity. You can see it did slide some.

Take a look at the -Y footpad in AS11-40-5850. You can see where the probe dragged along the ground (green arrows), as well as radial striations (red arrows) emanating from the direction of the engine bell (click on the image to see the whole thing, it's wide):



Similar things are viewable with the +Y footpad in AS11-40-5858, but the probe is bent in a different direction (the probes point in the opposite direction of the horizontal movement).

In AS11-40-5865, you can see a little buildup of soil (green arrows) in front of the -Y footpad, which along with the bent probe pointed out before again confirms the direction of horizontal motion (again, click to view the whole image):



Going back to the +Y footpad in AS1140-5870, you can again see some soil buildup (green arrows) in front of the footpad, opposite the direction the probe bent. You can also see some flattened soil (red arrows) that seems to indicate where the footpad made contact and slid (again, click for the whole thing):



AS11-40-5917 is another view of the +Y footpad. Here we see the burried probe and the compressed/smoothed soil (green arrows) where the footpad slid in the opposite direction the probe is bent (clicky, clicky again for the whole thing):



In AS11-40-5892, we can see soil buildup (green arrows) in front of the -Z footpad (click, you know the drill):



Another angle of the -Z footpad in AS11-40-5926 shows the soil buildup (green arrows) more closely (click):



Those should sufficiently demonstrate the motion of the LM as it touched down.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

That's true but the pics taken by their cameras don't suffer from pupil problems.
I don't see stars in them either..

But much like eyes, film has a limited sensitivity. And they actually do have "pupils," which refers to aperture of a lens. The lenses have blades in them that allow you to change the size of the hole light is allowed through to get to the film, just like how your pupils contract and dilate to allow less or more light in:



To take a picture of a sunlit landscape, the aperture is made smaller, so less light can get to the film. And given the limited sensitivity of the film, the very tiny amount of starlight that enters the lens just isn't enough to create an exposure on the film, so no stars are visible. So, just as they couldn't see the stars because of the sun and sunlit landscape, they couldn't photograph them while photographing the landscape as well.
edit on 8-1-2011 by nataylor because: typos



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
Take a look at the -Y footpad in You can see where the probe dragged along the ground (green arrows)

seems to indicate where the footpad made contact and slid

the footpad slid in the opposite direction the probe is bent

Those should sufficiently demonstrate the motion of the LM as it touched down.



It seems the LM was sliding around quite a bit upon touchdown. Why then would they land THIS close to a crater in Apollo 12 ? Very dangerous. That's of course if it really did land at all. I don't think they would land that close to a crater and risk toppling over.



edit add source: history.nasa.gov...
edit on 9-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added source



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Thanks again Nat..Like I said, I hadn't seen any pics with lateral movement of the pads..

Though in your "touchdown" velocity you are assuming a starting velocity of zero, which I don't believe was the case..
Also, regardless of anything else, the feelers were always going to leave marks as they were protruding below the pads..
The rest is good.
I hadn't seen them pics before..





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 301  302  303    305  306  307 >>

log in

join