Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001


No, this is the link I was referring to, you were so very, very, very fast to respond you missed my edit to correct the source.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ppk55
To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.

Here he clearly states at 1.16 in ...

"According to Russia's E. E. Kovalev, WITH NO SHIELDING the radiation could be anywhere from 11,666 rad per hour to 312.5 rad per hour."

He states, NO SHIELDING and also shows the table of figures in question at the same time.

I think some apologies might be in order.

reply to post by ppk55

No, this is the link I was referring to, you were so very, very, very fast to respond you missed my edit to correct the source.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you were so quick to respond that you missed my correction:
Here.

You see, this is where you are wrong, and also guilty of misleading people.
I have already shown that Jarrah did not lie. Which you have conveniently brushed under the carpet.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you continue this pursuit, pretending that you caught him out, when if fact it's you who have been caught out.

DJW, you were caught out with about 20 pages of posts accusing JW of being a liar, and now you've been caught out with your 'photo.' Enough is enough.

This is the post you've linked to:

Why do they call what radiation shielding? Why do they call a window shade a shade, when anything opaque can block sunlight?

I would say that, like air, a net would make a very poor shield against shotgun shot. That doesn't mean you can't make a stack of nets several meters thick that might be able to stop a shotgun blast.

Simple point is, everything provides some amount of shielding from radiation.

It was made by nataylor. How does that prove I'm a liar?

Now, please explain why you find my picture misleading? And where is that link to the original photo and EXIF data of your "counter example?"

Edit to add: Sorry, when I first tried your link, it took me to nat's post. It now takes me to this post:

To everyone saying Jarrah lied about not mentioning that the figures he presented were based on no shielding, may I direct you to Part 8 of his Radioactive Anomaly II series.

Here he clearly states at 1.16 in ...

"According to Russia's E. E. Kovalev, WITH NO SHIELDING the radiation could be anywhere from 11,666 rad per hour to 312.5 rad per hour."

He states, NO SHIELDING and also shows the table of figures in question at the same time.

I think some apologies might be in order.

I was not referring to part 8, which I still haven't seen. The simple fact is that Jarrah claimed that Kovalev's data contradicted NASA. It did not. That was a lie on Jarrah's part. Furthermore, Jarrah continuously claims the spacecraft was unshielded, drawing attention away from the fact that the spacecraft itself was shielding!

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

Incidentally, I agree, apologies are in order, but Jarrah never apologizes.

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 8-2-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ppk55

I like to source my evidence from an anonymous and unrelated third party. In this image, also of Cloud Gate, Chicago, you can quite clearly see the person on the mobility vehicle aiming off centre, and yet ... the lens is pointing at the camera in the reflection. (quite a bit different to your picture)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3054d4f1752.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 8-2-2011 by ppk55 because: edit: added (quite a bit different to your picture)

Excellent example ppk55, this is the point that I am making.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Sorry, but you are lying here:

Well according to NASA, they did it because of... billowing dust.

NOT "billowing".

This has been pointed out ad nauseum to you!!

The words, CLEARLY, in the citations are "blowing". BIG difference!!!

Oh really, well tell that to Hamish Lindsay from Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station:

In a maelstrom of dust, shadows, legs, and spent gases, the spaceship Eagle from Earth gently touched down on the lunar surface at 102h 45m 39s GET, 1517:41 USCDT on 20 July (0617:41 AEST 21 July, 1969.)

Aldrin: “Contact light!”
Armstrong: “Shutdown.”
Aldrin: “Okay. Engine stop.”

Aldrin: “At ten seconds we touched down on the lunar surface. The landing was so smooth I had to check the landing lights from the touchdown sensors to make sure the slight bump I felt was indeed the landing. It was.”

Duke: “We copy you down, Eagle.”

The billowing dust just dropped and all was still. Suddenly all the gut-wrenching, urgent decisions were gone – just silence. They had landed safely with a 4.5 degree tilt from vertical and a 13 degree yaw left from the flight path. With no atmosphere there were no familiar sounds from outside, no rustling leaves, no bird calls or human or animal noises, just the sound of their own breathing inside their helmets. The Eagle was safe on the lunar surface in an area ringed on one side by fairly good-sized craters, and on the other side by a boulder field, about the size of a house lot.

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

or David Baker from New Scientist 22 Jul 1989:
mag

But I know what you are going to say... artistic license.

NOW....Apollo 12's SEVA has already been discussed to death here on ATS. Member LunaCognita uncovered it, and posted here (and on his YouTube Channel as well).


Reason, back THEN, for it not being publicly acknowledged was, they did wish to keep any hint of "uncertainty" out of public view. After the success of Apollo 11, it was like a deflated balloon, in terms of continued enthusiasm to keep spending money on the "race" to the Moon. Only the reality of the pipeline of contractors, already paid, and the hardware that was on the production lines, kept the wolves in Congress from pulling the plug, and cutting off funds.

Ok great, now you admitted such a SEVA occurred.

Now, why dont you explain to us how they managed to keep such a thing a secret?

Where in the mission was it supposed to have taken place? Times or timeline please!

Who knew at mission control? Or are you telling me all those hundreds of people managed to keep it a secret? SHOCK!

Where is this source that states that the reason for the secrecy was due to public concerns?

You are obviously well versed on the subject, lets see how convincing of a story you can come up with.

reply to post by DJW001


Nice pic BTW..

Though that white building on the left looks odd, looks like we are seeing the roof..

On topic..
In your pic it is obvious your reflection is aiming at the centre of the pic..Focal point...
That is the same in the apollo pic and how it should be...

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by GrinchNoMore

 

If you look at the economy of america and russia today, you will see that all the money are spent on war and not space. Even if they wanted to go to the moon, and stop funding the military, it would still be to little money for the missions.

So what was so different today than back in 1969?
When they had to start from scratch?
It should be cheaper and easier now.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

Nice pic BTW..

Though that white building on the left looks odd, looks like we are seeing the roof..

On topic..
In your pic it is obvious your reflection is aiming at the centre of the pic..Focal point...
That is the same in the apollo pic and how it should be...

You are not considering the distance of the photographer to the subject.
From a distance you can include more into the picture,
but as you get closer you have less latitude.

For example, I can stand 100 feet away from a subject, and he or she wont know for sure what I am aiming it.
Now if I stood one foot away, he or she will definitely know that I am aiming at them.

The Apollo photograph shows that the photographer and his subject are relatively close and he is standing directly in front of the subject.
And the Astronaut in the picture is standing right next to the subject.
Therefore he is also basically part of the subject.

reply to post by FoosM

You are not considering the distance of the photographer to the subject.
From a distance you can include more into the picture,
but as you get closer you have less latitude.

For example, I can stand 100 feet away from a subject, and he or she wont know for sure what I am aiming it.
Now if I stood one foot away, he or she will definitely know that I am aiming at them.

The Apollo photograph shows that the photographer and his subject are relatively close and he is standing directly in front of the subject.
And the Astronaut in the picture is standing right next to the subject.
Therefore he is also basically part of the subject.

And you are not considering the radius of curvature. The astronaut's helmets were much smaller than "The Bean." The focal point is the center of the frame, the reflection of the camera should be pointing towards the focal point. A sharper radius of curvature concentrates more light in a smaller area, causing more distortion. Try it for yourself. Look at all the photos where you can see the photographer's reflection in a helmet. If the photo is centered on the astronaut, the lens will be facing directly back at itself. If the astronaut is off center, the reflection will appear rotated so that the camera is facing the focal point of the frame. Produce one (un-cropped) photo that appears otherwise.

reply to post by FoosM



Dude (or dudette) I think you need some perspective, and education.

I'll address, firstly, the "billowing" nonsense. WHO made that statement, in your citation (BTW, good to see you are following the ATS dictums, on that. What a welcome change.)

The guy, "Lindsay", in Honeysuckle..... Who was watching a live feed...so, he was seeing basically, via a VIDEO down-link (first to see it), what was happening. AND....is this "Lindsay" guy an Astronaut?? IS he even...a pilot? AN aerospace engineer?? A rocket scientist?? A physicist??

Or, just a guy with a particular talent, for his station and job.....WHO, when he saw the regolith disturbed by the descent engine exhaust actions, chose a rather COMMON Earthly interpretation to describe it?? He didn't have to be taken literally in that description, as he spoke off-the-cuff. This is the sort of ridiculous cherry-picking that infests the "debate" (which, BTW, is long over....you should catch up on the thread...) of the NON-"faking" of Apollo.

Again, for clarity...."billowing"..A dictionary definition:

Adjective
S: (adj) billowy, billowing, surging (characterized by great swelling waves or surges) "billowy storm clouds"; "the restless billowing sea"; "surging waves"

In common EARTHLY examples, in the context of this discussion, there is the tacit understanding of the contribution of the AIR, in the manner seen as particles are disturbed and thus spread around, and ....well, "billow".

IN A VACUUM.....three is no, none, zero , nada contribution of the atmosphere to suspend, deflect, or otherwise interact on the various particles that have been disturbed initially.

The ONLY forces acting on any particular particle, at any given time, are the DIRECT force of any outside effect...such as, the descent engine thrust gases. Each particle upon interaction , may follow its own trajectory...SOME will merely be forced to travel horizontally, until momentum slows, from friction with the surrounding terrain, and they eventually come to rest.

Again, in a VACUUM, the descent engine exhaust gases will dissipate VERY quickly, and their range of effectiveness is limited, when compared to a similar situation within an air-mass....in that case (as on Earth) the descent engine's gases DISPLACE air....and it's a bit of a "chain reaction" effect, then. In a VACUUM, the case is entirely different.

The problem with comprehension, on this, is a lack of visualization skills, and a lack of experience and comprehension to grasp the concepts involved. Those who fail to understand do so because they are trapped in an "Earthbound" mindset, and can only relate to their personal experiences HERE, on Earth, without being able to imagine outside of that paradigm. It takes some discipline, and DEEP thought, in order to fully "grok" on to these ideas......


So...the video technician in Honeysuckle, used a term that translated to HIS experience in similar situations, on EARTH...and said "billowing"....in an INTERVIEW later!!! He wasn't speaking from a purely scientific and technically accurate standpoint.

Capisce?
____________________________
I will be back, with a more thorough explanation of the (until recently, "secret") SEVA that occurred on Apollo 12.

I will tease with only this: When I first encountered the thread by ATS (and YouTube) member "LunaCognita", I was taken aback because of the innuendo drop that accompanied the claims...of that event. The innuendo that was inferred did NOT tend in the direction of Apollo "hoax" nonsense, so you can put your excitement away..... ----- No, it went into the "UFO and aliens" realm, and was touted as the "reason" for the SEVA. THAT struck me as a bit of a leap....so, I looked into it a lot, lot more.

As I hinted at, above....the SEVA was conducted, as we have no doubts about today. BUT, for very, very innocent reasons. Really....embarrassing reasons, to be frank. Due to some technical issues, Conrad and Bean, after touchdown, were a bit uncertain as to their exact position, and final placement....per the flight plan.

Recall......maybe only the really technical geeks paid attention at the time, but Apollo 11 missed the "planned" landing site, because of the tiny bit of unanticipated delta V imparted on the LM, when the CM/LM connecting tunnel disconnected, on Lunar orbit. The tunnel did not fully depressurize, to a complete vacuum..so, on disconnect, it added a bit of motion that wasn't in the plan....THIS is what ultimately resulted, in the final descent portion, in the computer "1202" alarms. They were merely saying that the poor old VERY basic computer OS of the day was overwhelmed, as it kept trying to re-calculate, from the info it was receiving in navigational updates.....it (the computer) "knew" it was a bit off-course....so, per program, was re-crunching the numbers, to do its programming and navigating job! It became overwhelmed, a few times...hence, the "alarms". BUT, of course, pilots can fly, and have better "computers" between their ears......

So, as a result, A11's descent profile ran a bit "long" downrange, from plan. The could NOT "go backwards"....well, technically, they could, of course....minimum forward relative to the 'Z' axis, rotate in the 'Y/Z' axis 180 degrees, and then move in the opposite direction....BUT, the point was they used that time of the Lunar "day" for a reason.....to keep the Sun behind them, for the long shadows, to give some depth perception...for the HUMANS (computers don't need that, they can't "see")...but, to control the craft, and land, Humans DO need it!! To reverse and to a 180, THEN the Sun would be directly in their eyes....and, it was another waste of fuel, too.

NO, what Armstrong did, was see that the slightly "long" path, after taking them past the planned location, presented a very inappropriate area...he needed something large and smooth, not a bunch of boulders.

He found it, further downrange, and probably a few degrees to either side of track.

NOW....with all that knowledge and experience behind them (from post-flight examinations and crew debriefs) AND, with one part of the mission plan objective for Apollo 12 to conduct a PRECISION landing (they wanted to have access to that unmanned Surveyor probe, from earlier), the heat was on, for NASA, to show that they could be accurate.

It is THAT simple...after the touchdown, and with a bit of confusion....(which they did NOT want to admit publicly, at the time)....a quick pop up top, through the docking hatch, for a look-see and to get orientated, was decided upon. A MINOR "secret", for the reasons I've outlined above. They took advantage of the height, of the full LM stack, for better perspective view...compared to a possible time-waster, during the EVA....and they had a tight schedule there, didn't want to waste effort and time.

I think, also....it would help if people following along, on this topic, IF they tried to understand the characters, the personalities, of Bob Conrad and Alan Bean. These guys were sharp, and very, very skilled...(as all were)...BUT, they were, as I've experienced with many, many pilot colleagues, VERY strong personalities as well. ( I kind of feel a kinship, with them, on that level...I have a strong personality, which gets me into trouble, here sometimes... ). They "said it like it is"....even while being very, very smart and capable. Compared to other Astronauts... (he "eggheads", like Aldrin....) and (and a lot of pilots I've encountered, over the years) who, while equally skilled, but could just be, well......."party-poopers", and "sticks-in-the-mud" wet blankets. In other words, their egos get in the way, and they take themselves WAY too seriously. You see this display in many doctors, too....the so-called "god complex".

I think, with the exuberance and bit of "bad boy" and "stretch the rules, they're made to be broken occasionally" attitudes...(within limits, of course!!. It's known as "Thinking Outside The Box")...Pete (Commander) probably made that call.....for the SEVA.

They certainly had "private" channels to Mission Control....but, the thing to keep in mind is, the media?? THEY could not be fooled. Back then, although the term "embedded" wasn't yet coined....it was much the same. The media people assigned to the space prgram lived, breathed and slept it....they knew a LOT!!).

I'd guess, at the time, given the circumstances, they decided it was OK to keep that one under wraps......for the sake of the FUTURE funding for the FUTURE missions....to prevent any hint of uncertainty, and thus open the door to criticism....


________________
I have found transcript info, and citations, to support al of the foregoing. Could post, if asked.

What was above, was an attempt to explain, in this limited way in this limited forum, from a perspective that many may not have, how the REALITY of things can be, really, easily explained....and, no....no need for a "vast conspiracy" or any "fakery" involved....just normal people, doing their normal jobs....even if exotic, still...for pilots, it was just another sort of flying. With REALLY cool equipment, BTW!!

reply to post by weedwhacker

I will tease with only this:

My gawd, if that's just a tease rhen the whole answer will be a book..

reply to post by backinblack


I "teased"....then edited with the rest, into the same post, to make it more comprehensive.

Got a problem with that???

I gotta lot more to share, to give people a bit of education, on this topic...and a view into the way pilots think, and behave. They ARE HUMAN BEINGS, underneath the exterior of protocol and "discipline" and "procedure" and whatnot.

I always knew, when I had good rapport with a colleague. You could all work as a team, and do your jobs accurately, and safely....AND exhibit some jocularity along the way....some will call THAT aspect (the "joking around") "unprofessional" behaviour (I spelt it that way just for YOU!! >wink

reply to post by weedwhacker


Problem is weed, we really know nothing about you..
You may not even be a pilot or you could be a crap pilot..
How would we know??

And it's not just pilots that are smart or can multi task..
You seem to think your opinion is above all others..

To put it in "pilot speak" you have an ego the size of an Airbus A380..

reply to post by backinblack

Sure....why not???:

To put it in "pilot speak" you have an ego the size of an Airbus A380..

Silly analogy, but "Guilty, as charged".

Want more? When the Boeing 747 was being designed, didn't take long for some joker to come up with a reason for the "hump" that was part of the forward fuselage....

You have to know that, in general for U.S. airlines, pay rates began to be tied to the SIZE [numbers of seats, really] of the airplanes, as negotiating tactic, many decades ago. This tied into the senority system, already in place....and neatly was designed to line the pockets OF the most senior, at the time.....the B-747 was the first really 'large widebody' developed, and was innovative for its day. The sheer NUMBERS of seats...and, the idea, there as floated by pilots' Unions, was....the increased compensaton was tied to the increased revenue...per the passengers' seats, and fares for each. Logical, eh???

OK....long way around to say that before you even realized it, I had you betean to the punch....your "A-380" attempt? Piker.

Back when the B-747 came out, the "hump" was described as required to accomodate the size of the Captain's WALLET under his bum, as he sat in the seat.....yeah....well, it WAS (sorta) funny, at the time.....hey!

It's not MY joke......but, it is history.

reply to post by weedwhacker


lol, I would of said to fit their swollen heads in but tha's just me..

But then they still earned a damn site less than me so who cares really..
Glorified train drivers...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

You are not considering the distance of the photographer to the subject.
From a distance you can include more into the picture,
but as you get closer you have less latitude.

For example, I can stand 100 feet away from a subject, and he or she wont know for sure what I am aiming it.
Now if I stood one foot away, he or she will definitely know that I am aiming at them.

The Apollo photograph shows that the photographer and his subject are relatively close and he is standing directly in front of the subject.
And the Astronaut in the picture is standing right next to the subject.
Therefore he is also basically part of the subject.

And you are not considering the radius of curvature. The astronaut's helmets were much smaller than "The Bean." The focal point is the center of the frame, the reflection of the camera should be pointing towards the focal point. A sharper radius of curvature concentrates more light in a smaller area, causing more distortion. Try it for yourself. Look at all the photos where you can see the photographer's reflection in a helmet. If the photo is centered on the astronaut, the lens will be facing directly back at itself. If the astronaut is off center, the reflection will appear rotated so that the camera is facing the focal point of the frame. Produce one (un-cropped) photo that appears otherwise.

DJ, nobody is saying that the photographer is directly pointing to the helmet of to the astronaut in the photo.
But he should appear to at least be looking towards that direction because the helmet is close to the target subject.

Not only that, the position of the astronaut who took the photo does not match the video.
In the reflection, the astronaut appears to be turned too far and aiming downwards.
There is no way that is the same person who took that photo.

Here is an example:
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
albeit this photo has its own issues, of the astronaut being on the side of the photograph but close to the subject (flag & Earth) yet we can see on the reflection of the visor the photographer is basically aiming towards his direction because he is close to the subject.

I wouldn't expect to see the reflection of a half turned astronaut in that picture!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dude (or dudette) I think you need some perspective, and education.

I'll address, firstly, the "billowing" nonsense. WHO made that statement, in your citation (BTW, good to see you are following the ATS dictums, on that. What a welcome change.)

The guy, "Lindsay", in Honeysuckle..... Who was watching a live feed...so, he was seeing basically, via a VIDEO down-link (first to see it), what was happening. AND....is this "Lindsay" guy an Astronaut?? IS he even...a pilot? AN aerospace engineer?? A rocket scientist?? A physicist??

Or, just a guy with a particular talent, for his station and job.....WHO, when he saw the regolith disturbed by the descent engine exhaust actions, chose a rather COMMON Earthly interpretation to describe it?? He didn't have to be taken literally in that description, as he spoke off-the-cuff. This is the sort of ridiculous cherry-picking that infests the "debate" (which, BTW, is long over....you should catch up on the thread...) of the NON-"faking" of Apollo.

First, "off the cuff"? Its in his book.
That was reviewed and edited.

Second, why are you demeaning this person?

Third, are you saying that expelled gasses can or cannot carry the dust particles?
You are kind of straddling the fence there.
And if the gasses can carry the dust, and is expelled in various degrees of force, would that not create a billowing effect?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by DJW001
In the real world, the image of a camera's reflection will point not towards the viewer, but towards the center of the photograph:

It doesn't seem so. I like to source my evidence from an anonymous and unrelated third party. In this image, also of Cloud Gate, Chicago, you can quite clearly see the person on the mobility vehicle aiming off centre, and yet ... the lens is pointing at the camera in the reflection. (quite a bit different to your picture)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3054d4f1752.jpg[/atsimg]

Before I make this request, may I point out that I am ALWAYS HAPPY, if asked, to provide full-resolution images of any of my shots that I post here, or full citations if they are not mine.

Ppk, please post the full-resolution original off-camera version of that image, along with the images before/after, in particular the ones that show that the photographer in the mirror is in fact the one taking the image...

Thanks. As you probably know (if you've *seen* the full-res version).. I have very good reason to ask that... If that's all too hard, I will have a subsequent request that is slightly less onerous.

By the way, ppk/foo, the Radiation pages are looking fabulous, imnsho!! Won't be much longer...

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by DJW001
In the real world, the image of a camera's reflection will point not towards the viewer, but towards the center of the photograph:

It doesn't seem so. I like to source my evidence from an anonymous and unrelated third party. In this image, also of Cloud Gate, Chicago, you can quite clearly see the person on the mobility vehicle aiming off centre, and yet ... the lens is pointing at the camera in the reflection. (quite a bit different to your picture)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3054d4f1752.jpg[/atsimg]

Before I make this request, may I point out that I am ALWAYS HAPPY, if asked, to provide full-resolution images of any of my shots that I post here, or full citations if they are not mine.

Ppk, please post the full-resolution original off-camera version of that image, along with the images before/after, in particular the ones that show that the photographer in the mirror is in fact the one taking the image...

Thanks. As you probably know (if you've *seen* the full-res version).. I have very good reason to ask that...

If that's all too hard, I will have a subsequent request that is slightly less onerous.

You know what, why dont you also use that same zeal and curiosity to analyze the NASA photo.
Or do you guys always assume their photos are true?

reply to post by FoosM

You know what, why dont you also use that same zeal and curiosity to analyze the NASA photo.
Or do you guys always assume their photos are true?

I ask the same question of you. Don't you find this photograph just a little "fishy?" And whereas NASA's photos are extensively documented, ppk has been unable or unwilling to post a link to the original of this photo and its EXIF data.

Why are you hammering away at this ridiculous topic? The reflections in the astronauts' helmets would appear exactly the way they do even if they were taken in a studio on Earth; optics and perspective pretty much follow the same rules everywhere. In the picture you posted, the reflection is turned towards the center of the frame. It is difficult to make out because the reflection is under lit. You argument is making you look foolish without in any way providing "evidence" of a hoax.

Originally posted by FoosM, QUOTE FIXED
You know what, why dont you also use that same zeal and curiosity to analyze the NASA photo.
Or do you guys always assume their photos are true?

PLEASE try to learn to quote, foo. And while you are at it, DELETE the parts that are needless duplication and stop wasting bandwidth.

The reason that there is no reason to ask for any more detail on the NASA image is that WE (not you, as shown by your image-defect faux pas) were able to find the original film scan very easily. It was CITED and the original full-resolution image was available for perusal.

ppk's original image WAS NOT CITED and is NOT AVAILABLE FOR PERUSAL.. yet.

Is that not clear in some way? Do I need to use shorter words?