Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Sorry, I forgot about Apollo 1,
no disrespect was intended..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra

 

Well firstly, the Russian's sent nine sample return missions with only three of them working successfully, so they didn't get merely what they wanted and clearly it wasn't an easy thing for them to do, due to the high rate of failure.

Well the Russians are known for some failures, unlike the entire Apollo program which had very few problems and no loss of life..
Amazing really when you consider we don't have that success rate even now..
Heck, a rocket went down just last week..

No loss of life?????

Ever heard of Apollo 1? Three astronauts died.

reply to post by Facefirst


You posted that 20 minutes after my post which is right above yours..

reply to post by backinblack


Sorry, but this is just beyond the pale, in ridiculous:

...would probably have had little trouble collecting rocks with automated systems..

...and is borderline non-contributory, and inflammatory, in this thread. It is completely unwarranted, implausible speculation. Speculation that is easily refuted by the facts, and established history, in any event...

Every space launch was well documented, and the only ones that went to the Moon are well known. For your suggestion?? One would have to suspend all reason and logic, and prefer to live in a land of delusional fantasies....for there simply were NOT any un-manned "robotic" land-and-collect samples-and-return missions to the Moon of any kind mounted by NASA. The data on this is irrefutable.

It is truly, utterly ignorant, and a futile attempt at "revisionist history" to make such an unsubstantiated claim....even in a "what if" disingenuous manner.

Gee....seems a heck of a lot like the sorts of tactics seen employed by the likes of "Jarrah White", in his crap videos.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Save it for the rant forum weed..
NOTHING I said was wrong...

Try adding to the thread instead of your usual nothing..Boring..

reply to post by weedwhacker


It's pretty much par for all conspiracies though.

WHAT IF.....the Govt wanted to spray us with chemicals?
WHAT IF.....the Illuminati were in control?
WHAT IF.....the WTC was pre-chambered?
.
.
.
etc

And so on - they invariably run the argument after that as if it were an established fact and convenienty forget that it stars with "WHAT IF....", and therefore at the end and conclusions need to be followed by a "so that is "what if". But since there's no actual evidence of it it doesn't matter a whit."

reply to post by weedwhacker

Gee....seems a heck of a lot like the sorts of tactics seen employed by the likes of "Jarrah White", in his crap videos.....

Are you accusing me of being JW weed..??
That's funny mate and would make me the lucky millionth person you have accused of being someone else..

Though I wonder who you really are..
Dick Cheney maybe ??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Sorry, I forgot about Apollo 1,
no disrespect was intended..

Sorry, but I dont count Apollo 1.
It wasn't a mission to land men on the moon. It was a test.
If you want to count earth based disasters you might as well count rocket failures and other failed tests as well.
Apollo defenders always bring Apollo 1 to skew the success rate of the Apollo moon missions.

reply to post by FoosM

Apollo defenders always bring Apollo 1 to skew the success rate of the Apollo moon missions.

They didn't call it APOLLO 1 for nothing Foosm....
That much I know was not a hoax and a bit odd on your part..
Of course they need tests first..
IMO and even "your" opinion is that they didn't test enough..
You can't have it both ways....

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Where these photos enhanced? cleaned up? modified? Composited?

Yes, the photo from spaceflight.nasa.gov was obviously cleaned up.

Was adding shadows part of a clean-up?
Plus, why would a clean-up alter the cross hairs?

it seems other photos on spaceflight.nasa.gov are edited to varying degrees, which is why I don't use them as a resource.

Examples.


Fact of the matter is its a clear sign of image tampering.
And what I dont understand how you can remove one of those cross hairs and not leave behind a mark of it ever being there in the first place. Why would a NASA sponsored website do that?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Where these photos enhanced? cleaned up? modified? Composited?

Yes, the photo from spaceflight.nasa.gov was obviously cleaned up.

Was adding shadows part of a clean-up?
Plus, why would a clean-up alter the cross hairs?

it seems other photos on spaceflight.nasa.gov are edited to varying degrees, which is why I don't use them as a resource.

Examples.


Fact of the matter is its a clear sign of image tampering.
And what I dont understand how you can remove one of those cross hairs and not leave behind a mark of it ever being there in the first place. Why would a NASA sponsored website do that?

yup, why? Just curious about that.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

Apollo defenders always bring Apollo 1 to skew the success rate of the Apollo moon missions.

They didn't call it APOLLO 1 for nothing Foosm....

Apollo 1 (originally designated AS (Apollo/Saturn)-204) ... The name Apollo 1, chosen by the crew, was officially retired by NASA in commemoration of them on April 24, 1967.

That much I know was not a hoax and a bit odd on your part..
Of course they need tests first..
IMO and even "your" opinion is that they didn't test enough..
You can't have it both ways....

Yes I can because the two dont conflict with each other.
Apollo 1 was a casualty in the Apollo program during a test phase,
but not a casualty in the actual manned landing on the moon.
There were no casualties landing men on the moon.

As a matter of fact, Apollo 1 was not planning to go to the moon, it was going to go around the Earth.

AS-204 was to be the first manned test flight of a Command and Service Module (CSM) to Earth orbit

And yes, they didnt test enough when it came to landing men on the moon.
The one crucial test was the LM.
They never did an unmanned test landing on the moon.

Immediately after the fire, NASA convened the Apollo 204 Accident Review Board to determine the cause of the fire. Although the ignition source was never conclusively identified, the astronauts' deaths were attributed to a wide range of lethal design and construction flaws in the early Apollo Command Module. The manned phase of the project was delayed for twenty months while these problems were corrected. The Saturn IB launch vehicle SA-204 (Saturn/Apollo) intended to fly the mission was later used for the first unmanned Lunar Module test flight, Apollo 5.

So the accident exposed a number of issues they had with the CM.
Without fully testing the LM, what issues did they leave hidden?
They also right after launched an unmanned test flight around the Earth, but not the moon.

See the pattern? All flights to the moon were manned, without casualty, with a few technical problems.
But most flights around the Earth were met with all kinds of technical problems including casualties.

Say what you want, but I dont count LEO tests as tests for manned lunar landings.

reply to post by FoosM

See the pattern? All flights to the moon were manned, without casualty, with a few technical problems.
But most flights around the Earth were met with all kinds of technical problems including casualties.

Well I don't think anyone can argue that point..
NASA were very very lucky yeah.??

Pity the Russians seemed to have more problems just with unmanned moon missions..
NASA must have been miles ahead on research and equipment..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM

 

See the pattern? All flights to the moon were manned, without casualty, with a few technical problems.
But most flights around the Earth were met with all kinds of technical problems including casualties.

Well I don't think anyone can argue that point..
NASA were very very lucky yeah.??

Pity the Russians seemed to have more problems just with unmanned moon missions..
NASA must have been miles ahead on research and equipment..

After Apollo 13, NASA made going to the moon look easy, with their rovers, and silly antics jumping around on the moon


So easy that people to this day are wondering... 'after 40 years, and a good portion of our tax money we get this?'

NASA's Lost Glory...

NASA's Earth-observing satellite, called Glory, launched this morning (March 4), but within minutes, scientists realized the rocket would not make it into orbit. The failed launch has implications for the study of Earth's climate and the changes that are shifting it.

Glory launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, on a Taurus XL rocket. The nose cone of the rocket covering the satellite failed to separate, making it too heavy and too slow to achieve orbit.

The lost satellite cost around $424 million

Well young adventurers, boldly going where no man has gone before might not happen in our lifetime.
We do have a consolation prize:


Moonbounce anyone?


www.space.com...
www.themoneytimes.com/.../nasa-loses-its-‘glory’-satellite-soon-after-launch- id-101701709565.html

Originally posted by FoosM
Was adding shadows part of a clean-up?
Plus, why would a clean-up alter the cross hairs?

Have you ever used photoshop? The "Rubber stamp" tool is likely what was used. You select a nearby area of the image and click on it and then click on the area you want to clean up, and it duplicates and blends it together. It's pretty easy to do and doing that could easily end up covering one or more of the crosshairs if one's not being that careful.

Examples.

I don't have the time to look through a bunch of photos for you. It's really simple though. Pick a photo from that NASA spaceflight site and then find another version of it on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and open them both up and flip back and forth between them to see if they're any changes. If not, move on to the next photo and try again.

Fact of the matter is its a clear sign of image tampering...

...Why would a NASA sponsored website do that?

For the same reason every single magazine does it. Aesthetics!

It's not tampering. Tampering implies something illegal or improper, this is just some cosmetic editing. Myself and my wife do it to every single photo we take.

So easy that people to this day are wondering... 'after 40 years, and a good portion of our tax money we get this?'

What does the loss of this satellite have to do with Apollo? The rocket that failed wasn't a NASA rocket. It is owned and operated by a private company called Orbital Sciences. A NASA satellite (and three other non-NASA satellites), were just on for the ride.

reply to post by jra

What does the loss of this satellite have to do with Apollo? The rocket that failed wasn't a NASA rocket. It is owned and operated by a private company called Orbital Sciences. A NASA satellite (and three other non-NASA satellites), were just on for the ride.

True, but Orbital Sciences looks like a NASA spin off..
Have you seen their board??
Half are ex NASA including an ex astronaut..
I'd say their ties to NASA are pretty damn close..

www.orbital.com...

reply to post by FoosM


I got a message from Jarrah White....he channeled it telepathically.....wait a second....repeating now....coming in more clearly....

....it's for FoosM, and is about this latest post.....J.W.....is....unhappy. He thinks that posts like that hurt his "credibility"....he is saying that they don't help him, in his "mission" (whatever that is??).

Of course, that might just have been a lucid dream, carrying on into my waking hours....the "fog of sleep" still slowly lifting from my awareness, even as we speak....details fading, fading........

Before he disconnected, I tried t tell him to come here....."Come into the light, Jarrah Anne" I pleaded....uh oh. Message might have been misdirected....I messed up his name.

Darn it!! "D'Oh!!"

Still, I will try again, to get the name correct, and see if I (maybe we all can try, too?) can get him to come and defend his "beliefs"....what do you think are my (our) chances??

reply to post by FoosM

Sorry, but I dont count Apollo 1.
It wasn't a mission to land men on the moon. It was a test.
If you want to count earth based disasters you might as well count rocket failures and other failed tests as well.
Apollo defenders always bring Apollo 1 to skew the success rate of the Apollo moon missions.

Very well, FoosM, if you're so lazy that you're just going to rehash things we've already gone over, I'll just follow suit:

reply to post by FoosM

No, you conveniently do not read my posts carefully.

I said no fatalities while taking a roundtrip to the moon.
Apollo 1 didnt go to the moon did it?
And Apollo 13 had no fatalities did it?

No, I read what you said very carefully. First you said "rate of success" and then you changed what you were talking about:

And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid.

What you said.

The rate of success would be how many missions were accomplished successfully during the entire program. The number of deaths during the program is something else. The number of failed lunar missions is yet another. The rate of success for the program is 83%. One out of twelve astronauts died in order to achieve the goal of landing on the Moon. One out of seven landing missions failed: That's a failure rate of 14%. How many astronauts do you want to have died?

Now consider this: would you fly on an airline that boasted that their "success rate" was 100%, excluding flights to Melbourne, in which case only one out of seven flights arrives safely? And flights to Sydney, which result in the death of one out of every twelve passengers? I doubt you would. And you wonder why no-one else has been in a hurry to go back?

Page 245

Edit to add:

Say what you want, but I dont count LEO tests as tests for manned lunar landings.

Well, at least you admit you need to cherry pick.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

I got a message from Jarrah White....he channeled it telepathically.....wait a second....repeating now....coming in more clearly....

Funny stuff there Weed. I dont know what your point was. But it was entertaining to read nonetheless.

Originally posted by backinblack
True, but Orbital Sciences looks like a NASA spin off..
Have you seen their board??
Half are ex NASA including an ex astronaut..
I'd say their ties to NASA are pretty damn close..

Of course they have ex NASA employees. I'd be surprised if any of the private space companies didn't have at least a few. It kind of makes sense to hire people who have experiance, you know? SpaceX has at least two astronauts according to that news letter.