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: 374
377
<< 371  372  373    375  376  377 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky
 



So, now that you are changing the subject, I can assume that you are assured of the possibility of the movements performed by the astronaut?


No, I just see you have a different opinion and I'm not going to change that..


That has nothing to do with "Opinion"
those dangly bits to right and left of a person are called "Arms"
The grey bit on the bottom of the video is called "Ground"
"Touching" means they occupy almost, but not quite the same space.
The motion where you first have your "Arms" close to your "Chest" and then stretch them out is called "Pushing"
"He is pushing himself up from the ground with his arms" Is a description, not an Opinion
"He is not touching the ground with his arms" Is likewise a description, not an Opinion, but of a different Video.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



That has nothing to do with "Opinion"
those dangly bits to right and left of a person are called "Arms"
The grey bit on the bottom of the video is called "Ground"
"Touching" means they occupy almost, but not quite the same space.
The motion where you first have your "Arms" close to your "Chest" and then stretch them out is called "Pushing"
"He is pushing himself up from the ground with his arms" Is a description, not an Opinion
"He is not touching the ground with his arms" Is likewise a description, not an Opinion, but of a different Video.


The pushing up with his hands is irrelevant.
The motion prior to standing up was downwards and forwards onto his knees.
No hands touched the ground after that motion so I hope you see my point..

It is an impossible act to stand up from that position without leaning way back, which he doesn't appear to do..
All I can think of to explain this at all is the weight of his backpack.
Maybe that gave him enough backward momentum to stand..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



IMO the solar panel is angled in the wrong direction for that to be a reflection of the antenna given that we know the line of sight from the camera..
You can judge the angles more clearly in the pic where the wand is in his right hand..
Like I said DJ, just IMO...

Here is a more distant view of the LRV:



Note how wide the high gain antenna is; it could nearly cover the entire rover. You will note that the reflection in question is not coherent, it merely suggests a large bright object above and to the right.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Thanks DJ but I can also see the position of the solar panel..
I still don't see how a pic taken from infront and to the left would reflect the antenna..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Besides DJ, most of you dont even want to get near the fakery of AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454 with a 10 foot pole. Here is a pole that you might want to try your luck with, A few pages back I had posted this video. watch from 0:15


Originally posted by FoosM


Young, in the background, is beside the Lunar Surface Magnetometer. Nearer the camera, Duke bends down and picks the rammer-jammer up off the ground. He feeds it into the core hole bored into the ground earlier and releases it - it falls smoothly into the hole. Next, he spots a pretty rock on the ground and picks it up and examines it. CapCom Tony England tells him to “Blow on it” to remove the dust. It is a 3-centimetre sphere of black glass.





You see the astronaut putting that pole in the ground? And when he let go it just slid down by itself?

Question: There is no moisture on the moon, so what scientific/geological principles allowed the hole to stay open for the pole to slide down by itself?


Now the pipe did not go all the way down. You will notice a piece of it sticks out of the ground.
Watch from 0:57, and place your mouse pointer near to the protruding pole while you watch the video. Now the astronaut somehow noticed a special rock after he fell down. He goes to pick it up and falls down again. He struggles, and it appears that his KNEE and SHIN hits the part of the pole that was sticking out. He then steps around the area of the pole. At some point we dont see the pole anymore.

Question: Where did the pole go? And, did the astronaut damage his suit at all?




edit on 1-3-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Besides DJ, most of you dont even want to get near the fakery of AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454 with a 10 foot pole. Here is a pole that you might want to try your luck with, A few pages back I had posted this video. watch from 0:15


WHAT FAKERY? I showed you that there is absolutely nothing "anomalous" about that photo sequence but your contra-factual assertion that they were taken in 1 second. Do you still believe that? On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Jarrah's "fakery:"



Jarah lies about Kovalev's data.
Jarrah boasts about lying to cover his tracks.
Jarrah lies about his "expert."
Jarrah's wilful deception concerning HAM radio.
Jarrah's ignorance of light and shadow, from Page 2!


And, more recently:




To summarize, Jarrah starts his video series by alluding to alleged "recycling" of images by NASA, when in fact the case in hand was no such thing. The primary sources are all in agreement: NASA photo S66-40127 is a picture of Michael Collins training in a "zero-G" airplane. That's what NASA says in its archives, that's what the caption says in the book. The hoax propagandists seized upon secondary sources (commercial illustrations) to create the impression that there was deception on NASA's part, Jarrah uses this slight of hand constantly during this video series; he seizes upon the product of a second or even third party, waves his hands and says: "NASA claims...."


Unless you refute all of the above posts, you must admit that Jarrah is nothing more than a common hoaxer. That is what this thread is about, not whether the space program was real.


You see the astronaut putting that pole in the ground? And when he let go it just slid down by itself?

Question: There is no moisture on the moon, so what scientific/geological principles allowed the hole to stay open for the pole to slide down by itself?


What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!




FIGURE 26.-Lunar Surface Drill. This drill will be used to drill holes on the Moon to a depth of about 10 feet. It is electrically powered and operates from batteries. The treadle is used to steady the drill stem and to deflect cuttings from striking the astronaut. Two holes are used for the heat now experiment and a third one is used to obtain samples for study back on Earth. The tool sketched on the right is used to extract the eve from the hole and operates somewhat like an automobile bumper jack. A reek used for holding the drill stem is sketched in figure 19.

NASA


Now the pipe did not go all the way down. You will notice a piece of it sticks out of the ground.
Watch from 0:57, and place your mouse pointer near to the protruding pole while you watch the video. Now the astronaut somehow noticed a special rock after he fell down. He goes to pick it up and falls down again. He struggles, and it appears that his KNEE and SHIN hits the part of the pole that was sticking out. He then steps around the area of the pole. At some point we dont see the pole anymore.

Question: Where did the pole go? And, did the astronaut damage his suit at all?


The probe stays in the hole, obviously. Sometimes it disappears into shadow, at other times it gets obscured by dust. You just revel in things that are at the limit of resolution, don'y you? As for the space suit, it is essentially bullet-proof. Of course it wasn't damaged.

Now that I have answered all of your questions, would you kindly start answering some of mine?




edit on 1-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!


They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that??



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!


They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that??


And the fact that he performs the exact same impossible meneuver to get up, including irrelevant push with his hands doesn't bother you at all?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!


They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that??


From what I gathered here during tests they could drill:
ntrs.nasa.gov...

43% porosity basalt
at 3-8 inches per minute

Pumice at
120-140 inches per minute

Scoria at
6 o 12 inches a minute.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



And the fact that he performs the exact same impossible meneuver to get up, including irrelevant push with his hands doesn't bother you at all?


Not sure what you are saying but the hand push is NOT what got him up..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky
 



And the fact that he performs the exact same impossible meneuver to get up, including irrelevant push with his hands doesn't bother you at all?


Not sure what you are saying but the hand push is NOT what got him up..


[Thinks...]

...wonder if bib will ever give reasons and supporting evidence for his opinions...

...or acknowledge information given to him, like the stuff above about drilling rates...

...and i just love the irony of the post about admitting error - it's just as well bib has never had to do that, and of course it's nothing to do with how he drops one subject than jumps to the next...

...now where have I seen these tactics before... i'm sure it will come to me...



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky
 



And the fact that he performs the exact same impossible meneuver to get up, including irrelevant push with his hands doesn't bother you at all?


Not sure what you are saying but the hand push is NOT what got him up..


He went down like 4 times. The first three he didnt use his hands to get up, but the last one... I can see that he did what appears to be a push-up.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



From what I gathered here during tests they could drill:
ntrs.nasa.gov...

43% porosity basalt
at 3-8 inches per minute

Pumice at
120-140 inches per minute

Scoria at
6 o 12 inches a minute.


Well spotted FoosM! Have a star! Shooting from the hip at 3 AM my explanation sounded perfectly reasonable to me. My main concern was to stop your latest distraction and steer the thread back to Jarrah's lies, specifically the one about the alleged Gemini X photo. After a few more hours of fitful sleep. I saw backinblack's post and realized I was mistaken; the regolith is many meters deep, so it was regolith, not crust, that they were digging in to.

The lunar regolith has a porosity ranging from ~44% to ~54%. depending on depth, and bulk density between 1.45 to 1.79 gcm^3. This makes it comparable in some ways to terrestrial clays, which have a porosity of between 51% to 58%. (Clays have a much lower bulk density, however, but it is over all a better match than sand, which has a porosity of between 36% and 43%.) In other words, at depth the regolith is like clay that has had its moisture removed: brick. The reason why the hole didn't collapse in on itself is the same reason you can drill a hole in brick without it collapsing. This brick-like nature of the regolith also explains why only the loosest upper layer was disturbed by the landers' rockets.
Parameters Of Lunar Soils
Wikipedia

edit on 1-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct numerous typos.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


[Thinks...]
...wonder if bib will ever give reasons and supporting evidence for his opinions...
...or acknowledge information given to him, like the stuff above about drilling rates...
...and i just love the irony of the post about admitting error - it's just as well bib has never had to do that, and of course it's nothing to do with how he drops one subject than jumps to the next...
...now where have I seen these tactics before... i'm sure it will come to me...


Your posts are getting less informative and more attacking every day..
Is that your new concept of debate.??

Now which subjects have I dropped CHRLZ,?
Ohh, was it the one about the size of Earth V's Moon that YOU have refused to answer or admit you were WRONG..??
That one maybe.??



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky
 



And the fact that he performs the exact same impossible meneuver to get up, including irrelevant push with his hands doesn't bother you at all?


Not sure what you are saying but the hand push is NOT what got him up..


He went down like 4 times. The first three he didnt use his hands to get up, but the last one... I can see that he did what appears to be a push-up.


The way I saw it was no hands were used..
But I did give this explanation which the slag team just ignore..

All I can think of to explain this at all is the weight of his backpack.
Maybe that gave him enough backward momentum to stand..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



The way I saw it was no hands were used..
But I did give this explanation which the slag team just ignore..


"Slag team?" Please explain.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



The way I saw it was no hands were used..
But I did give this explanation which the slag team just ignore..


"Slag team?" Please explain.


Do I really need to..??



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Your posts are getting less informative and more attacking every day..


Oh, the delicious irony, when it was immediately followed by this post:

But I did give this explanation which the slag team just ignore..

Tell me, bib, does 1/6 gravity also reduce the astronaut's strength? (Yes, it's a very stupid question..)

Is there a reason you haven't mentioned the 1/6g issue? You're good at this stuff, alright - nuthin' slips past...


Now which subjects have I dropped CHRLZ,?

Just remember YOU asked for a list. It will take me a little while to complie. It's a quite a long list...


Ohh, was it the one about the size of Earth V's Moon that YOU have refused to answer or admit you were WRONG..??

The one where your 'proof' involved RECTANGLES and a calculation of AREA?
The one where you ignored how ENLARGEMENT IS ALWAYS MEASURED LINEARLY?
The one where you ignored how MAGNIFICATION IS ALWAYS MEASURED LINEARLY? (What does 12x mag mean? 12x area? NO)
The one where you ignored that LENS ZOOM RATIOS ARE ALWAYS STATED LINEARLY (What does a 10x zoom ratio mean? 10x area? NO)
The one where you ignored references given you?
The one where NOONE ELSE USES YOUR 'DEFINITION'?

The one where the only folks who will agree with you are house painters or concreters who are quoting on the areas..?

Is that the one?


Do you know WHY calculating areas and volumes is completely different to enlargement and size ratios? Obviously you've never used a camera or enlarger... It's the same old HB problem. Limited experience, makes up stuff as he goes along, changes definitions as it suits his arguments

Let me state this again, in very simple terms.

When you are looking at something, imaging something, enlarging something, and you want to express a change in size, it is ALWAYS stated linearly.

IF you are calculating the area for a specific reason (just as IF you were calculating the volume or mass) then you could use an area ratio. But the DEFAULT, the STANDARD way to express an apparent size ratio is LINEARLY. I've already given references for this, and frankly it isn't in question.

Is ANYONE ELSE in doubt about this? Unless you get some CITED and properly debated support, bib, you LOSE.

Now, lets get this list together.... bbl.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Tell me, bib, does 1/6 gravity also reduce the astronaut's strength? (Yes, it's a very stupid question..)

Is there a reason you haven't mentioned the 1/6g issue? You're good at this stuff, alright - nuthin' slips past...


Without leaning way back there are actually NO muscles in the legs to force direct upward movement from a kneeling position..
Gravity is irrelevant..
Though if you read on you would see I mentioned it MAY have been the weight of their packs which helped..


The one where your 'proof' involved RECTANGLES and a calculation of AREA?
The one where you ignored how ENLARGEMENT IS ALWAYS MEASURED LINEARLY?
The one where you ignored how MAGNIFICATION IS ALWAYS MEASURED LINEARLY? (What does 12x mag mean? 12x area? NO)
The one where you ignored that LENS ZOOM RATIOS ARE ALWAYS STATED LINEARLY (What does a 10x zoom ratio mean? 10x area? NO)
The one where you ignored references given you?
The one where NOONE ELSE USES YOUR 'DEFINITION'?

The one where the only folks who will agree with you are house painters or concreters who are quoting on the areas..?


Funny, you said SUBJECTS and that just looks like one, the one you still haven't answered..
As for your last line, that's really odd..
DJW "DID" answer and agreed with me at 16 times...

You're just trapped in a photographer's view of the world and don't seem to know basic math..


So CHRLZ

We have two objects. the first is 1cm x 1 cm, the second is 1cm x 4cm..
How many times bigger is the second compared to the first??

Let's let the audience decide on your answer shall we?

Edit: I'll throw in another one for you..This will be fun..
We have two objects. the first is 1cm x 1 cm, the second is 4cm x 4cm..
How many times bigger is the second compared to the first??
edit on 2-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Funny, you said SUBJECTS and that just looks like one, the one you still haven't answered..

You mean like the incredulous comment you made about how they could possibly drill 10 feet? Dropped that one pretty quick - and that was just on this page. I haven't yet bothered to go back..


DJW "DID" answer and agreed with me at 16 times...

Let's quote DJW, shall we, rather than take your word..

Personally, I'd opt to let the Moon's radius = 1, in which case the Earth would appear to be (Pi)4^2 times larger than the Moon does. Let's call it 16 times bigger.
...
In fairness, however, it would only be four times wider, which is what CHARLZ is talking about.

Seems to me he was agreeing that the area was greater (which I already stated), but the enlargement or magnification ratio is four times, like I said. But you'd need to ask him for further clarification...


We have two objects. the first is 1cm x 1 cm, the second is 1cm x 4cm..

(and yes, I see your little post-edit - you noticed one of the small problems, did you?)


Let's deal with your first attempt, shall we?


How many times bigger is the second compared to the first??

In terms of length - FOUR TIMES. In terms of width - same. In terms of area - FOUR TIMES.
(oops - nice choice, bib!)
Magnification or enlargement does not apply to these objects, because you picked two that are of different shapes. All pretty straightforward, and frankly it's a truly stupid question, imo.. I notice in your newly posted edit, you seemed to have noticed this small issue - pity it took so long...


Now, make your point ON YOUR FIRST EXAMPLE.... (And yes, it was bit silly to use a unitary dimension, wasn't it..?)


In other words - why do you ask, Two Dogs? Will we be *painting* these two dissimilar objects? Concreting over them perhaps? Why have you chosen two NON-CIRCULAR dissimilar shaped objects that cannot be translated to one another by simple enlargement? Why have you chosen two objects that are non SIMILAR, in accordance with a proper definition:
en.wikipedia.org...(geometry)
(stupid ats links - may not work, but I'm sure you can work it out)

After all, the earth and the moon are round (or near enough) and SIMILAR - so why would you deliberately pick such an odd pair of objects?

You see (no you probably don't) - a small moon and a large earth can be expressed as different sizes, different areas, different volumes, different masses. It makes sense to do so because they are the same shape, just different sizes (unlike your silly example). All of those ratios are different, of course. It's pretty basic stuff.

But now let me ask you, and anyone else reading this distraction - here is the earth and moon, as they would appear from a similar distance:

What power magnifying glass would you need to use, to get the moon to the same size?
(Hint - 4x)
What zoom ratio on a camera would you use?
(Hint - 4x)
How much further away would you need to be from earth for it to appear the same size?
(Hint - 4x)
Are you spotting a pattern there? If we did it in area, or volume or mass, would you see that same pattern? Hint - NO, which is just one of the reasons WHY we use linear ratios for expressing enlargement.

So, in simpleton's terms to enlarge the moon to the same size as the earth, you need to enlarge it about 4x.

And in the context of the discussion, that was the issue - not how much more area it contained, not how much paint we would need to cover it, but how much closer it appeared, how much bigger it was..

Anyway, if that still doesn't get through... You may carry on without me.

But I'm still doing the list. Do you want to address that drilling issue first, so we can cross that one off? It will all help. But next time you want to express incredulity like this:

They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that[sic]??

..maybe don't type so fast so you don't get your mords wuddled, and also do the research first, so you don't look ill-informed and waste more of this forum's time as others find stuff that YOU should have looked up..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 371  372  373    375  376  377 >>

log in

join