Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


I get from those videos that JW doesn't understand exposure at all. He compares photos and talks about exposure times while not mentioning the apertures involved. And he completely ignores and never mentions film sensitivity. Exposure is a function of all three of those things.

Apollo 8 astronauts talk about the stars and some other questionable things that
shall be raised later if it wasn't raised before....

STARt around 8:45




Now before they went around the darkside of the moon,
Space is described as a 'gray sky'
and that it was hard to see stars.

Now when they entered the shadow side of the moon we hear
that there were stars EVERYWHERE.
They couldn't tell which ones were which there were so many.

Is that description unique to orbiting the moon?
Or could we find descriptions similar in Earth orbit?

One student asked how many stars were in space.
"I'll be interested in hearing the answer to this one," Obama said.
"We can see that there are so many stars out there that it's very hard to count them all," Fincke said. "And we can see that our Earth is a very small planet in such a big universe."

www.reuters.com...

That came from astronauts in the ISS which orbit under 500 KM
img.gpsreview.net...


Now, further he describes a big black hole in between the stars, which was the moon.
But I got a problem with this. How close where they to the moon?
How could they see all those stars when being so close to the moon?
Now if they were in Earth orbit, seeing the expanse of space with all the stars...
that would make sense.

Again, the testimony of seeing the stars is anti-climatic.
It seems rehearsed. As if he is living a partially true memory.

Sure, maybe he was in space, and he saw the stars, but from LEO.
Not from the moon.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst

I am not going to rely on the verdict of a vindictive child who thinks rubbing a balloon on the side of his head is actually going to accurately simulate static charges in outer space.

The kid has been shown to bully people in forums, misrepresent facts and in one known case, knowingly use a false witness. (That's called lying) He has also been shown by people who are actually trained in space related fields that he knows little to nothing of the very subjects he pontificates about.

Jarrah provides no proof of anything other that his own technically unqualified, speculative opinion.

Sorry, I'm done with Jarrah.

Wow, you give up easy.
Is it because you cant find a good explanation for the moving flag on NASA's side?
Do you give up on NASA too?

*waves hand*

Give up easily? I've been into this subject and many other space related phenomena for over thirty years.

How can I trust Jarrah's videos if he's already been caught LYING in them? In addition to be shown that he can't even properly interpret data?!?!?!?

Why do you ignore that JARRAH LIED in his videos?

And yet you still champion him?

The kid has NO technical background, NO training whatsoever in any of the subjects he talks about and then has the arrogance to claim he's qualified to dissect the work of the TOP minds in their respective fields?

And a few people have openly offered to have Jarrah's claims analyzed by independent third party researchers. (otherwise known as qualified experts) So far, Jarrah hasn't taken anyone up. I wonder why?

And it seems that the scientists of two other country's space programs can't produce good enough information for you and Jarrah? I think they are a little more qualified to speak on the subject than Jarrah, you, myself or just about anyone else on this board. Does Jarrah or you actually have the credentials and training to interpret interplanetary mapping? I think not. How about rocket science? Nope. How about, astro-physics? Zilch & nada again.

But Jarrah knows better? Where are his qualifications other than having a youtube account and an internet connection? He was asked for his qualifications by Jay Windley (an actual aerospace engineer) more than once and instead of answering, he either changed the subject or insulted Windley....... similar to what I've seen you do here when you are intellectually cornered by a few people here.....

this is getting tedious.

waving right back atcha, good day.

Originally posted by Facefirst


But Jarrah knows better? Where are his qualifications other than having a youtube account and an internet connection? He was asked for his qualifications by Jay Windley (an actual aerospace engineer) more than once and instead of answering, he either changed the subject or insulted Windley....... similar to what I've seen you do here when you are intellectually cornered by a few people here.....

this is getting tedious.

waving right back atcha, good day.

What is NASA's explanation for the moving flag?
You know that multi-million dollar agency consisting of
persons with top degrees in various fields of science and technology.

Originally posted by FoosM

One student asked how many stars were in space.
"I'll be interested in hearing the answer to this one," Obama said.
"We can see that there are so many stars out there that it's very hard to count them all," Fincke said. "And we can see that our Earth is a very small planet in such a big universe."

www.reuters.com...

That came from astronauts in the ISS which orbit under 500 KM
img.gpsreview.net...

The kids question, and the answer, are clearly not talking about how many stars they literally see. Take a look at the full answer:

www.nasa.gov...

STUDENT: Do you know how many stars there are in space?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Asking how many stars in space. I'll be interested in hearing the answer to this one. (Laughter.)

COMMANDER FINCKE: Well, aboard the International Space Station, we can look down and see our beautiful planet Earth, and we can also look up and see the rest of the cosmos. And we can see that there are so many stars out there that it's very hard to count them all.

And we can see that our Earth is a very small -- very small planet in such a big universe. And it's just really amazing, because it gives us a deep perspective of -- we have to really take good care of our own planet, and that our own planet is just a -- is a small place, and we have the whole rest of the universe to work together in an international sense and go explore this whole universe that's in front of us and all the discoveries that we'll make together.

So maybe we will someday be able to count how many stars that we have, because we're starting to go them, go to the stars as human beings together. And that's what's really exciting about serving aboard the international space station and flying up and down on space shuttles is that we're part of that great adventure.

And we need you kids to study hard, because we can't do it all by ourselves. We really need you guys to work hard and do whatever you're supposed to do and do it well, like Tony said, because there's a whole universe in front of us.

I think I'll just jump in here to say that my forthcoming critique of "Radiation Anomaly II part 3" will be somewhat disappointing. Although there is much manipulation going on, the refutation of his "Bremstrahlung argument" does not prove that he was lying, simply asking the wrong question. The threshold energy for the production of bremstrahlung in aluminum is about 30 MeV, well above the values in the ERB. I'm wrestling with whether or not I should explain this as it does not demonstrate deliberate lying on Jarrah's part, simply biting off more than he can chew. Further, by spending time pointing out this error, I would only be providing certain parties with an excuse to claim that I haven't "proved Apollo" and using that as a springboard to evade the dramatic omissions that Jarrah intentionally makes. Until then, carry on the debate about stars that FoosM brings up every twenty pages or so. We all know how it ends by now.

Originally posted by FoosM



Right.
I thought the US & USSR were enemies in a cold war/space race.
I would think the USSR would want to verify US claims.
But thats the crux of the issue. Why wouldnt they?
Why would they simply say, "sure we believe you Americans, you would never trick us.
And you would never build military bases on the moon to become a 'uber' power in the world"
LOL.

But now you want us to believe they were allies/friendlies?

sigh.

Given the complete confusion of your post, I can only conclude you are just ignoring the point. But I couldn't help but notice you left off the most important point made (which you have done many times before):

There have been dozens of countries who have been involved with sending probes both into deep space and to the moon. NOT ONE scientist from any of those countries has questioned ANY of the numbers produced by Apollo. If the radiation for the VABs were so much higher than NASA has published, the probes from these other countries would have been fried, or if the radiation on the moon is so much higher, they could have lost their probes, yet every country does not remotely question NASA and Apollo.

Are they ALL lying?

Well Foos, are they ALL lying?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What is the difference between this "halo" and a "face on mars"?

The "face on Mars" is a natural feature in a random location. The halo is a notable surface discontinuity in precisely the location where a manned landing is known to have taken place.

DJW. If you see a "halo" here then I will believe that you see one. But I don't see a "halo".

JAXA picture: Apollo landing site "halo" on the Moon?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a29a3cbf4b6.jpg[/atsimg]

Or, a cleverly disguised moon montage of a JAXA scientist with black tape over his mouth?

Now stare directly at the middle of this picture and look for the scientist.

Soldier ON FoosM~!!!

here's one of my favorites as I watch the documentary last week called .. "the wounder of it all" .. title deemed appropriate in my book..

one of the many questions came to mind was .. hmmm.. who is the 3rd person taking the video...??



they just 'landed' on the moon, jumped on of LM and were sticking the flag in the ground.. so the rover wasn't out yet.. yea..

the rover wasn't out yet. so ..... who's the 3rd person ...??

so... is there a camera there taking the shot .. if so .. where's the power cable .. ??

FoosM.. you got a full length original clip for this ? without the cutting away to NASA..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I actually see a doctor with that light thingy on his head..
Ohh he also has a moustache..

You can see many things in pics..Explains a lot of crazy threads of mars faces..

Originally posted by Komodo
Soldier ON FoosM~!!!

here's one of my favorites as I watch the documentary last week called .. "the wounder of it all" .. title deemed appropriate in my book..

one of the many questions came to mind was .. hmmm.. who is the 3rd person taking the video...??

they just 'landed' on the moon, jumped on of LM and were sticking the flag in the ground.. so the rover wasn't out yet.. yea..

the rover wasn't out yet. so ..... who's the 3rd person ...??

so... is there a camera there taking the shot .. if so .. where's the power cable .. ??

FoosM.. you got a full length original clip for this ? without the cutting away to NASA..

It's apollo 11..
They left Rover at home, sorry....
Cameras worked off battery or maybe solar for fixed items I'd say..

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM.. if you haven't already seen the TV documentary .. "The Wounder of it All".. they contradict themselves about the stars....

reply to post by backinblack


sorry .. i didn't see any space in the cameras for btry's .. nor solar power... that i remember..

www.lpi.usra.edu...

not sure if I see the solar panels in them.. but they did have a cable.. which isn't readily available on the video clip.....

.

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by backinblack

 

sorry .. i didn't see any space in the cameras for btry's .. nor solar power... that i remember..

.

I'm sure someone will be along to tell you soon..
I do know there was no Rover on the first landing though...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by backinblack

 

sorry .. i didn't see any space in the cameras for btry's .. nor solar power... that i remember..

.

I'm sure someone will be along to tell you soon..
I do know there was no Rover on the first landing though...

I think that was his point.
Since there was no Rover where did the power source come from?
I assumed it was connected to the LM, and I thought I read that one of the astronauts had tripped on it.
Though, to be honest, I never considered where in they plugged it in.
They might as well have plugged in lights too, lol.
Maybe there something to it, maybe not, I'll check it though.

Originally posted by Komodo
one of the many questions came to mind was .. hmmm.. who is the 3rd person taking the video...??

When Armstrong exited the LM. Their was a lever to release the camera that was attached to the LM. Once they were both on the surface, they later moved the camera away from the LM.

the rover wasn't out yet. so ..... who's the 3rd person ...??

As mentioned, there was no Rover. Not until Apollo 15.

so... is there a camera there taking the shot .. if so .. where's the power cable .. ??

Why don't you simply go look at some photos? AS11-37-5495. The cable is too thin to be seen in low resolution videos.

FoosM.. you got a full length original clip for this ? without the cutting away to NASA..

Go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. They have all the video cut up into small segments along with the transcripts as well as commentary.

Originally posted by Facefirst

If the Soviets could have outed the Americans having hoaxed the moon landings, they certainly would have done it. They would have loved to have embarrassed the Americans.

Sometimes it was in the Soviet's interest to perpetuate a US lie, even embellish it.

In this article from 1964, they knew perfectly well the US had lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, yet they went along with it, even adding some extra vessels and having some being sunk.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a2575872758.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf1fa890a9ea.png[/atsimg]

As we now know, none of this happened. It just started the Vietnam War.

Obviously the Soviets were opposing the US, however this is what's interesting.
When the US fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin lie the Soviets went along with it.

So how can you know when it was in their interest to lie or not? You don't know what was going on behind closed doors re: Apollo

Original Newspaper Article

reply to post by ppk55

Sometimes it was in the Soviet's interest to perpetuate a US lie, even embellish it.

In this case, they made sure that the Americans appeared to be the aggressors. What does that have to do with Jarrah's lies?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Facefirst

If the Soviets could have outed the Americans having hoaxed the moon landings, they certainly would have done it. They would have loved to have embarrassed the Americans.

Sometimes it was in the Soviet's interest to perpetuate a US lie, even embellish it.

In this article from 1964, they knew perfectly well the US had lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, yet they went along with it, even adding some extra vessels and having some being sunk.

edit on 12-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added Apollo and Vietnam War

In other words politics is very complex.
To assume that the Russians would simply "out" the US for faking the missions
is superficial reasoning.
The Russians could have used the knowledge to score far more important points.
Leverage is power.

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM

 

FoosM.. if you haven't already seen the TV documentary .. "The Wounder of it All".. they contradict themselves about the stars....

Thanks for the tip