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: 359
377
<< 356  357  358    360  361  362 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How much did NASA have
with the Apollo model?


Enough:


AS-201

Launch
Feb. 26, 1966; 11:12:01 am EST
Launch Complex 34
Eastern Test Range, Cape Canaveral, Fla.
Saturn IB

Orbit
Altitude: 303 miles (488 km)
Orbits: suborbital
Duration: 36 minutes, 59 seconds
Distance: 5,264 miles (8,472 km)

Landing
Feb. 26, 1966; 11:49 am EST
Splashdown: Atlantic Ocean, 8472 km downrange
Impact Point: 8.18 degrees south, 11.15 degrees west
Recovery Ship: USS Boxer at 2:20 p.m. EST

AS-202

Launch
Aug. 25, 1966; 1:15:32 p.m. EDT
Launch Complex 34
Eastern Test Range, Cape Canaveral, Fla.
Uprated Saturn I (Saturn-IB)

Orbit
Altitude: 710 miles (1,143 km)
Orbits: suborbital
Duration: 93 minutes

Landing
Aug. 25, 1966
Splashdown: Pacific Ocean
Impact Point: 500 miles southwest of Wake Island
Recovery Ship: USS Hornet at 11:17 p.m. EDT


I'll skip ahead to:


Apollo 6

Launch
April 4, 1968; 7:00:01 a.m. EST
Launch Pad 39A
Eastern Test Range, Cape Canaveral, Fla.
Saturn-V AS-502
High Bay 3
Mobile Launcher Platform-2
Firing Room 2

Orbit
Altitude: 13,792 miles
Inclination: 32.5 degrees
Orbits: orbital
Duration: nine hours, 57 minutes

Landing
April 4, 1968; 5:23 p.m. EST
Splashdown: Exact landing point unknown
First Visual Sighting: 27 degrees, 40 minutes north, and 157 degrees, 59 minutes west
Recovery Ship: USS Okinawa at 10:55 p.m. EST


Full details of all the unmanned Apollo test flights here. Did you really think they never tested the equipment before putting human beings in it? Why do you think the first successful manned flight was called "Apollo 7?" Masonic numerology? (Oh, wait, you probably do!)




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record?


Yes, of course there is, and from multiple sources, yet you continue to act as though there is not.


Not so fast there DJ.
provide us with unbroken video footage of the entire Apollo trip.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Full details of all the unmanned Apollo test flights here. Did you really think they never tested the equipment before putting human beings in it? Why do you think the first successful manned flight was called "Apollo 7?" Masonic numerology? (Oh, wait, you probably do!)



DJ, it looks like you
missed the point.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record? No. There is no difference between the Apollo evidence and a Hollywood movie. We see a space ship go up, we see some antics on the moon, and we see it being recovered on earth. Does it mean that people actually went to the moon? No.



Then where did the 800 + pounds of moon rock come from?

Every single argument made by Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene has been thoroughly refuted and debunked. Laughably I might add.

I chuckle when I think of Rene and his hardware store glove vacuum experiment or White rubbing a balloon on his head during his flag experiment. And I use the term "experiment" as loosely as humanly possible. Do you think a single one of their experiments would hold up in a court of law or under professional scientific scrutiny? Seriously? They would be laughed out of town.

Rene also claimed to have disproved Newtonian law and that he could also reduce Einstein's theory of Relativity to an "Absurdity."

And why did so many astronauts develop cataracts? Some as soon as 4 or 5 years after their missions. Standing too close to microwave ovens?

science.nasa.gov...
Or was that some grand scheme by evil NASA?
edit on 17-2-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Then where did the 800 + pounds of moon rock come from?


I dont know, have you seen all these pounds of rock?
Has anybody? Anybody not from NASA?



Every single argument made by Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene has been thoroughly refuted and debunked. Laughably I might add.


Yeah, your right, all these refutations and debunking claims are laughable at best.




I chuckle when I think of Rene and his hardware store glove vacuum experiment or White rubbing a balloon on his head during his flag experiment. And I use the term "experiment" as loosely as humanly possible. Do you think a single one of their experiments would hold up in a court of law or under professional scientific scrutiny? Seriously? They would be laughed out of town.


So what moved the flag?
What did NASA say moved the flag?




And why did so many astronauts develop cataracts? Some as soon as 4 or 5 years after their missions. Standing too close to microwave ovens?



from your source:

At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space,


So now what you are saying is that 39 astronauts travelled to and landed on the moon?
What missions were those?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM, you constantly expose yourself as nothing more than an attempt, here, to intentionally troll this thread:



So what moved the flag?


You ask a question without context. You provide no substantiation even to ASK this, by being purposefully vague.....you are playing games. Again. You have been doing so, on and off, for over 200 pages. You are caught.

You compound the crime, here:


What did NASA say moved the flag?


Yet again, another distraction attempt. Completely off-topic, argumentative and irrelevant. Do you know what "argumentative" means?


Now.....speaking of argumentative, here is evidence of even MORE disingenuous misdirection on your part. A (sadly) common trait exhibited, in a large percentage of your posts.

In your response above:


Originally posted by FoosM


from your source:


At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space,



So now what you are saying is that 39 astronauts travelled to and landed on the moon?
What missions were those?



Your reading skills are NOT that poor. Therefore, only one conclusion can be inferred, here. You are acting the petulant child, and that reflects in only one direction, to the people reading and observing.....





edit on 17 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM, you constantly expose yourself as nothing more than an attempt, here, to intentionally troll this thread:



So what moved the flag?


You ask a question without context. You provide no substantiation even to ASK this, by being purposefully vague.....you are playing games. Again. You have been doing so, on and off, for over 200 pages. You are caught.


Now Weed, you know and I know this post you made should have been addressed to Facefirst.
I mean, are you seriously telling me that you see nothing wrong with his post?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Not so fast there DJ.
provide us with unbroken video footage of the entire Apollo trip.


Funny, I could have sworn you said:


In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record?


Seems you've moved the goalposts yet again. In any event, the question is preposterous. Can you provide me with a single unbroken video record of any event that ever occurred? History is pieced together from all the sources available. Only a moron would claim that he refuses to believe that WW II ever happened unless he could watch every single moment of every single event in one, continuous, unbroken filmed record.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, it looks like you
missed the point.


I guess you're right. What's the point; be specific.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

147:30:42 Irwin: You want me to carry the staff and the flag out there, huh?

147:30:46 Allen: Negative, negative, leave it near the LM. We'll pick it up a little later when we come back to the Falcon. Just leave it there in a convenient place.

147:30:53 Irwin: Oh. Okay. (Chuckles) I thought I was going to be able do the Station 8 with the flag waving in the background.


@ waving


148:37:00 Allen: Dave, we've got a lot of time. We're going to deploy the flag now and we need the TV please. (Jim laughs)

148:37:13 Scott: Okay, Joe.


Yeah, get this scam on the evening news

Public will eat it up like all the other crazy pablum we feed them.



148:52:50 Allen: And, Jim, if possible, we'd like for you to come around north of the Rover there to deploy it, and we're tracking the camera that direction.
148:53:00 Irwin: You tell me when I'm in a good position.


Yeah that will be fun with the delay.



148:53:02 Scott: Hey, hey. Over here, Jim!

148:53:03 Irwin: It would be better to have the...

148:53:05 Scott: Yep.

148:53:06 Irwin: ...the LM as a...

148:53:08 Scott: Right here where we usually do it.

148:53:17 Allen: Beautiful right there!
148:53:20 Irwin: Suppose that's too...(Stops to listen to Joe) (Long Pause)

[Scott - "Before we went, we staged the orientation of the flag and the Rover in the simulator building at the Cape. We had a plan on where to put everything, and the only problem was, when we finally got to it, the Rover was facing the flag instead of sideways. And I think that's because they were concerned about (battery) temperatures. But, other than that, the location of where Jim was and the flag was and the LM and the Rover was all staged before we went."]
[Jim puts the staff on the scuff mark and leans on it.]


:lol @ staged


148:55:08 Scott: Let's see.
148:55:09 Irwin: Probably want to swing it around perpendicular to the (TV) camera, huh?
148:55:15 Scott: Okay! It's pretty good! Why don't you stand there?


So if its perpendicular to the TV camera, then it should be parallel to the photocamera right?





(Because the flag is translucent and is ENE of the TV, it is the brightest object in the scene and forces the automatic iris to close almost all the way. Dave and Jim are nearly lost in the resulting darkness.)
148:55:21 Irwin: Let me get up on the high part.
[Jim gets up on a slight rise east of the flag.]
148:55:23 Scott: Okay. Gee, I wish we had color (film).
148:55:24 Irwin: Yeah.
148:55:27 Allen: We'll have color tomorrow, Dave...


Yeah dont worry, the production crew will have it ready for you tomorrow.
Do this last scene so we can all go home and have some din din.






Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag; (3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ; (4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack.

In thinking about these possibilities, numbers 5 and 6 are very unlikely, since there is no evidence of similar flag motions during the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 deployments for which we have good video or - in the case of Apollo 14 - film coverage. With regard to foot impacts, we can certainly see the ground move when flagstaffs and cores are hammered into the ground, but the motions extend only a few centimeters outward and, because the Apollo 14 flag points at the LRV TV camera, Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect. Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that he got close enough to the flagstaff to have moved it with a displaced mound of dirt.



So was it a static charge?
No.
Thats all JW was pointing out, the obvious.
No worse than MythBuster experiments.


history.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Funny, I could have sworn you said:


In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record?



Yeah I did say that, and as far as I see

without any break in the record = unbroken video footage

So whats the problem?




Seems you've moved the goalposts yet again. In any event, the question is preposterous. Can you provide me with a single unbroken video record of any event that ever occurred?


Big Brother ?





History is pieced together from all the sources available. Only a moron would claim that he refuses to believe that WW II ever happened unless he could watch every single moment of every single event in one, continuous, unbroken filmed record.


What does WW2 got to do with anything?
We are talking about a controlled isolated event.
Not a sprawling war long war.

Are football, tennis, swimming matches recorded fully?
Why dont you use those as a comparisons?

You want to have us believe that NASA could send men to the moon but could not figure out
how to record the entire trip nonstop? Would it be that different than keeping track of the telemetry data... oh wait.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry.....you HAVE been shown the definitive answer to the Apollo 15 "flag incident" already. In this very thread.


So was it a static charge?
No.



Wanna see it again? Too bad, because no matter what you want, it's getting posted anyways:




'Shanedk's' words (not mine....) :
"Those 'moon hoaxers' really get to me, sometimes...it's not even that they're so smug....self-righteous....
.....Since ignoring them obviously won't make them go away...."


He thoroughly trounces the "hoax" believers, left and right....!

edit on 17 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AliensAreDemons
 

could you or other members please point me towards more information on the things you mentioned in your post.
It sounds fascinating.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sorry.....you HAVE been shown the definitive answer to the Apollo 15 "flag incident" already. In this very thread.


So was it a static charge?
No.



Wanna see it again? Too bad, because no matter what you want, it's getting posted anyways:




'Shanedk's' words (not mine....) :
"Those 'moon hoaxers' really get to me, sometimes...it's not even that they're so smug....self-righteous....
.....Since ignoring them obviously won't make them go away...."


He thoroughly trounces the "hoax" believers, left and right....!

edit on 17 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


The stick figure in the video is way smaller than the real astronaut as shown in the actual film.
In the film the astronaut is so close to the camera that the top of his head is actually out of the frame..

I don't mind these debunking vids but that is baloney...

Rather than your usual rant weed, take stills and post them to prove me wrong..
I don't know how to post stills...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Wow. The moon is extremely bright tonight.

Tonight is a full moon. I was wondering why my backyard was so well illuminated! Going outside to investigate I duly noted the full moon, I observed the clearest atmosphere and a very bright full moon. The intensity of that full moon light is overwhelming to me because to look at the moon at this time [Feb. 18, 00:55PST, Seattle, WA] will create a 'moon in your eyes' when you turn away from viewing the sky. It is the same effect attributed to the sun when you look at it. The intensity of light from the moon tonight is casting a shadow onto the floor through a window in my house!

Tonight the atmospheric conditions are perfect. I viewed a crisp winter moon in the black sky, fully exposed to sunlight, viewed from the surface of the Earth through a perfectly clear atmosphere. The moon is ablaze with bright white light! How could the astronauts cope with such bright light? How could the Hasselblad's cope with such overwhelming reflective brightness?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



How could the astronauts cope with such bright light?


Exactly the same way you cope with the dazzling light of day on Earth. The eyes' pupils dilate.


How could the Hasselblad's cope with such overwhelming reflective brightness?


The same way it does on Earth; setting the exposure properly. I notice you didn't mention a star filled sky. Does that mean you now understand the mystery of why there are no stars in the photographs?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yeah I did say that, and as far as I see
without any break in the record = unbroken video footage
So whats the problem?


The transcriptions of the flight communications are also eyewitness records, yet now you are back pedalling and demanding video. Even if every instant were recorded on video, they would need to change the tape from time to time. You would argue that the changing of the tape means that it was not continuous and invalidates the tapes as evidence. In other words, you are setting an impossible standard.


What does WW2 got to do with anything?
We are talking about a controlled isolated event.
Not a sprawling war long war.


But tapes of the sound transmission exist, and the eyewitness testimony of the participants at their debriefing. Whys isn't that sufficient? The comparison to WWII is not invalid; if it were somehow feasible to record every moment of the activities of the crew, you would argue that we don't have an unbroken record of the activities of, say, the engineer monitoring fuel cell pressure or the folks at Goldstone operating the radio equipment. The Apollo missions were a sprawling series of events. You are deliberately asking for the impossible, because you cannot provide any evidence to support your own biased claims.


Are football, tennis, swimming matches recorded fully?
Why dont you use those as a comparisons?


The vast majority of sporting events are not recorded at all, or are recorded by proud moms and dads on inexpensive equipment. Professional and high level amateur events are recorded by professional videographers, but since these events are only two hours long, rather than ten days like a space mission, it is feasible to do so. Even then, despite multiple angles from independent recording devices, referees' calls remain controversial. Recording events can be technically difficult, denying the validity of the recordings is easy.


You want to have us believe that NASA could send men to the moon but could not figure out
how to record the entire trip nonstop?


You are welcome to believe that it is possible record 2,400 hours of video on a single spool of magnetic tape.


Would it be that different than keeping track of the telemetry data... oh wait.


They did keep track of the telemetry data, even if they recorded over it after transferring it to another medium, like paper. It's sad that you seem to be unable to believe anything unless you can see it on TV.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Does the lesser atmosphere of the moon alter how light acts on the Moon?

Doesn't light reflect off the atmosphere?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Does the lesser atmosphere of the moon alter how light acts on the Moon?


Just the opposite. The Earth's atmosphere causes light to scatter or be absorbed or otherwise interact. On the Moon, light tends to follow straight paths without interference.


Doesn't light reflect off the atmosphere?


Some wavelengths do, others cause the atmosphere to heat up while others pass through it as though it didn't exist.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Just the opposite. The Earth's atmosphere causes light to scatter or be absorbed or otherwise interact. On the Moon, light tends to follow straight paths without interference.


So light sources would be more visible on the moon, more direct?




top topics



 
377
<< 356  357  358    360  361  362 >>

log in

join