Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Tsk, Tsk.

Same old tricks, I see. Will let exponent handle the majority, but found your greatest flaw is in believing any old crap from online (like that "Aussie" bloke! The *genius*.....>eye roll

reply to post by backinblack


bib.....NO! You are incorrect. Please note:

Foosm shows another instance of the word "simulation" being used ..
Is he wrong or you ???

NOTE the way the transcript (the official) transcript is annotated. The term used and VOICED was the (diminutive)...or "abbreviation"....."sim"....

I searched the PDF I linked (YOU can too!!), based SOLELY on the FoosM "source" (the German-language-of apparently-Swiss-origin-website-that-I-care-not-to-link-again). THAT so-called "source" completely IGNORED the fact that, in the actual transcript, the word fragment "sim" was CLARIFIED, for the layperson reading....so that the LAYPERSON would not stumble over it....and wonder "What does 'sim' mean??"

In "pilot speak" it is jargon. Commonly used 'short-hand' methods of conveying information to each other....I do it here. I have to curb ('kerb') it based on my read of the audience who I am addressing. Because, the "jargon" doesn't sound the same to everyone.

AS TO FoosM and that "source"?? It was disingenuous, at best....it IGNORED (can I emphasize that enough?) the editorial change in the transcript....for the benefit of history, and readers who may not be comfortable with every nuance of "lingo"....


CLEAR???

(I could explain this SO much easier in about three sentences, in person....compared to this venue!!! Grrrr!)

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Continuing on, there are NO MORE instances of the word "simulation" in the transcript. All the way to splashdown.

Foosm shows another instance of the word "simulation" being used ..
Is he wrong or you ???

Lets clear this up Weed..
Someone needs to admit they were wrong...

Here are some facts that NASA cheerleaders can't stand:
1. No other human beings travelled been beyond the VAB except 24 NASA employees. Independant scientific peer review simply does not exist.
2. CIA involvement means we need to look at every pixel of detail of Apollo knowing that the CIA are the world's queerest bastards.
3. Deny ignorance. Doesnt that mean in essense to "question everything"?
4. Jarrah White has expertly presented 40 years of Apollo questions into a single channel of video documentary information. Viewing Jarrah's many in-depth reports is a crash course in NASA/Apollo conspiracy lore.
5. A lot of the ORIGINALvideo data and telemetry went missing. NASA will instead use digital remasters from x-generation copies. It will look very impressive in widescreen hi-def. But it's far from original source material.
6. Astronauts won't swear on Bibles. Either they don't believe in Bibles or they did believe but could not swear. Same astronauts who quoted the Bible from the moon.
7. The prime motivation for the Apollo program was always political P.R.opaganda.

P.R.opaganda success!

[Reading telegrams to the Apollo 8 crew during their mission]
Michael Collins: And we've got a telegram here from a Mrs. Valerie Pringle. I'm sure it's not a name that any of you recognize, it's just something that one of the Public Affairs people picked up 'cause he liked it. Mrs. Pringle writes, very simply, "You saved 1968."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Oh so you have evidence that these transcripts are incomplete?
Do tell.

I know it's difficult FoosM, but think. These are transcripts of audio recordings. They only record what the astronauts and capcom said out loud. They need not have described everything they did. Sometimes the transcribers need to conjecture or speculate on what the astronauts were doing during moments of silence... or when there is ambiguous dialog like: "Ready?" "I got three that time." Why didn't Schmidt say: "Are
you ready to take a series of photographs while I leap into rover with my LRV tool strapped to my left hand side?"

168:46:44 Cernan: Okay, Jack, (pause) we better get going.
168:46:50 Schmitt: Yeah. (Pause) You know, I don't think there is any subfloor in here. The rocks are so dust covered that it's hard to be sure, but no rock I picked up looked like subfloor.
168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/453cb59c2a1a.gif[/atsimg]
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.
168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)
168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.



168:47:16 Parker: 17, Houston. Do you read me through the LM?
168:47:20 Schmitt: You're loud and clear.
168:47:22 Parker: Roger. Thank you.

Why didn't Cernan say: "Okay, I can't help but notice that the LRV tool is bouncing up?" People just don't narrate their lives like that.

They do on simulated moon missions:

168:47:32 Schmitt: Okay. I hope it (the seatbelt)'s (or ceiling cable) untwisted this time, so I can get off.
168:47:38 Cernan: Oh, let's see. If old "twinkletoes" (Gene, himself) can do it. Jack, there's a big one (a rock) right there, in my floor pan. (Pause) That's what I did last time.

[Cernan - "I did whatever I'd done the last time (at Station 8 when he fell as he tried to mount the Rover) - got my foot caught on something, or whatever."]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d05e68d3f57.gif[/atsimg]
hmmmm....

168:47:53 Schmitt: Okay. I'm on, strangely enough. (Pause) Okay. (Pause) (dont they mean Cernan:puz
168:48:05 Cernan: Let's see. Okay. The charge is off to the right. (Pause)
168:48:23 Schmitt: Yeah, you're all right. You can clear it this way or...
168:48:31 Cernan: Yeah. I see it.
168:48:33 Schmitt: Okay. (Pause, thinking back to Houston's mistaken impression that the out-of focus flag was a background object) I bet you they thought there was some more orange soil over there on the hills. (Pause)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

For all the efforts,
Not one person has been able to offer a reasonable explanation for the events during the three photos.
Because its not possible.
And every time someone comes up with a new theory, the also bring up new problems.

For example, for Schmitt to jump into the LM with the Sampler attached to him, or holding on to it, would be folly... dangerous. I wouldnt jump with a broom handle into a go-cart knowing I could injure myself, damage the stick, or even the Rover. Why didnt Gene warn him about the sampler when he asked him to try?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

6. Astronauts won't swear on Bibles. Either they don't believe in Bibles or they did believe but could not swear. Same astronauts who quoted the Bible from the moon.

Good points, but for the record, at least one astronaut did swear on the bible.
Now was he religious? Thats another thing

Google Video Link

Missing Earth


This has been debated before on other forums.
But I haven't been able to get a clear understanding why this isn't an anomaly.
Given that the lens and camera is the same, given the distance, why does Earth only show up in
one of these photos?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b51b4ef9282.gif[/atsimg]

I did a rough composite of the photos and scaled down the "earth" photo to match aprox. the other two.
And it appears both of the non "earth" photos had enough "space" to have the Earth in the photo.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/179188f99750.gif[/atsimg]

And I'll admit, I may have done this incorrectly and therefore have misinterpreted the results.

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)

What happened during the first pause, FoosM? What happened during the second pause? Thanks for pointing out that there is nearly five seconds unaccounted for... in this portion of the transcript alone. Thank you for emphasizing my point.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Here are some facts that NASA cheerleaders can't stand:
1. No other human beings travelled been beyond the VAB except 24 NASA employees. Independant scientific peer review simply does not exist.

Many other counties have launched unmanned probes and satellites beyond the ERBs. None of them dispute NASA's record. All of the data, including the actual, physical lunar soil and rocks have been examined by scientists and engineers in nearly every country on Earth. This is the very definition of "peer review." (A concept that Jarrah White has been proven not to understand.)

2. CIA involvement means we need to look at every pixel of detail of Apollo knowing that the CIA are the world's queerest bastards.

After the Australians, of course. (How does that feel, mate?) By all means, look as closely as you can. But don't just wave your hands and say: "I don't believe it."

3. Deny ignorance. Doesnt that mean in essense to "question everything"?

I agree. Whenever I question Jarrah White's statements, they turn out to be monumentally ignorant... or outright lies. (Do I need to start posting links?)

4. Jarrah White has expertly presented 40 years of Apollo questions into a single channel of video documentary information. Viewing Jarrah's many in-depth reports is a crash course in NASA/Apollo conspiracy lore.

Jarrah White has plagiarized forty years of other people's lies and disinformation in an attempt to compensate for his social maladjustment. You know it's true:


[Edit to add: parental discretion is advised!]

5. A lot of the ORIGINALvideo data and telemetry went missing. NASA will instead use digital remasters from x-generation copies. It will look very impressive in widescreen hi-def. But it's far from original source material.

The original photographic film is stored in nitrogen in freezers in Houston. Although some of the spools of tape recording telemetry data were re-used, it is all in other formats. Would it really change your mind to hear 200 hours of beepBRRPbeeeepbeeeeepBRRPbeeeeeeeep?

6. Astronauts won't swear on Bibles. Either they don't believe in Bibles or they did believe but could not swear. Same astronauts who quoted the Bible from the moon.

Astronauts won't swear on a bible when a sweating lunatic shoves it in their face. Do you blame them?

7. The prime motivation for the Apollo program was always political P.R.opaganda.

The main motivation for the Apollo program was to co-ordinate America's industrial efforts to achieve superiority in space technology. They succeeded, and people who hate anything American just loathe that fact, and will say or do anything to minimize or disparage it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)

What happened during the first pause, FoosM? What happened during the second pause? Thanks for pointing out that there is nearly five seconds unaccounted for... in this portion of the transcript alone. Thank you for emphasizing my point.

Oh come on DJ, really?
Like you really cant check for yourself?
You really dont know?
After all, you were one of the few who had copy pasted the transcript and analyzed it.
You never noticed what the pauses are for?
Thats intellectual dishonesty in the form of misdirection.


168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)

Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.
[Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."]

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e54f69c83a3c.gif[/atsimg]
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


But thanks... I just realized that Cernan forgot that he took three pictures!

And it's a pretty good picture.

reply to post by FoosM

Oh come on DJ, really?
Like you really cant check for yourself?
You really dont know?
After all, you were one of the few who had copy pasted the transcript and analyzed it.
You never noticed what the pauses are for?
Thats intellectual dishonesty in the form of misdirection.

So... what you're saying is that the guy sitting at the typewriter listening to the audio tape was actually present so that his description of the scene is 100% accurate? He knew for a fact that Schmidt jumped? This photo sequence reasonably would fit with that dialog, but other than the photos, we don't know what they were actually doing, do we? What part of this are you not understanding? And, speaking of misdirection and intellectual dishonesty, why haven't you replied to this post?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Oh come on DJ, really?
Like you really cant check for yourself?
You really dont know?
After all, you were one of the few who had copy pasted the transcript and analyzed it.
You never noticed what the pauses are for?
Thats intellectual dishonesty in the form of misdirection.

So... what you're saying is that the guy sitting at the typewriter listening to the audio tape was actually present so that his description of the scene is 100% accurate?

As you can read the Astronauts themselves offer insight to what occured during their simulation exercise.
Or are you not counting their testimony?

Commentary by the Editors and...

Apollo 17 Astronauts
Eugene A. Cernan
and
Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt

He knew for a fact that Schmidt jumped? This photo sequence reasonably would fit with that dialog, but other than the photos, we don't know what they were actually doing, do we? What part of this are you not understanding?

And what part of the PHOTOS showing what happened are you not understanding?

And, speaking of misdirection and intellectual dishonesty, why haven't you replied to this post?

Because its off topic.


next.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

And, speaking of misdirection and intellectual dishonesty, why haven't you replied to this post?

Because its off topic.

No, it is central to the topic. Jarrah White's entire case is based upon finding "anomalies" in the historical record. My post exposes his "methodology" for the travesty it is. Do I need to spell it out for you?

What's this? Who took this picture? The only person with a camera isn't pointing the carmera directly towards itself!!! How is that possible? And he's wearing sunglasses? How can he possibly operate a complicated piece of equipment like a camera wearing shades?

Argument from ignorance. Moon Hoax propagandists love to post pictures of reflections in the bubble helmet, claiming that the camera is not pointed in the right direction. This "evidence" is merely a reflection of their own ignorance of light, reflection and shadows. They also make spurious claims about how "difficult" it would be to operate equipment they themselves do not know how to use... like cameras.

And there's something weird about this building! How can we be looking directly down on it like this??

Rather than make an honest attempt to understand what they are looking at, they exploit anything that appears odd. In this case, simple research would reveal that the building in question has a slanted atrium on the upper stories, causing the illusion that it is somehow viewed from above. Moon Hoax propagandists will arbitrarily claim that shadows "don't look right," rocks "look like papier mache," the horizon "looks too close" and so forth.

And what is this guy doing? Why does he have two of those shovels? Where did they come from? I mean are they made in the US or China? If you can't answer that question unequivocally, it's a smoking gun that the city of Chicago doesn't exist! There can only be one correct, logical answer.

Moon Hoax propagandists are fond of taking random events out of context and inflating their importance. They pose irrelevant questions and make trivial points (that they could research for themselves) into life or death "smoking guns," I have addressed the "FoosM Indeterminacy Fallacy" here. (Funny... you didn't reply to that one either. Was that "off topic" too?)

And if that alleged structure is really solid, how did that snow get under it?

Failure to understand the physical nature of the environment. In this case, willfully ignoring the fact that snow can blow underneath things. In the case of the Moon Hoax propagandists, failure to understand how dust behaves in a vacuum, or how bodies move under different gravitational circumstances.

And there's something not quite right about those obviously fake buildings in the background! Why is the taller building's roof-line not parallel to the roof-lines of the building in front of it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb6e3119d0ce.jpg[/atsimg]

I re-posted this photo so that you can see the subtlety of it. First of all, there is the constant repetition of the unproven conclusion. Moon Hoaxers love to repeat phrases like "astroNOTs" or "so called," "alleged" and so forth, because by drumming them into people's heads, the less critically minded might accept them as fact through sheer familiarity. It is a common propaganda technique. It is also begging the question. Undoubtedly you were able to spot the confusion about perspective, but there is a subtlety here. Notice the way I drew the line establishing the "roof-line" of the buildings in the foreground. I connected a series of points that appear to be on the same level but are not. We have seen this sort of intellectual dishonesty here countless times.

And what about these "tourists" just standing around? They've supposedly traveled thousands of miles to see this world famous historic landmark and they're not even looking at it!!! They should be grinning from ear to ear as they gaze at it in awe.

Projection of fantasized emotions onto others. How many times have Moon Hoax propagandists argued that the astronauts weren't behaving the way they should have. They should have been grinning from ear to ear instead of looking exhausted. They should have brought a telescope. They should have done nothing but take pictures of the Earth instead of the Moon.

There are so many anomalies in this one photo alone that it provides overwhelming evidence that Chicago is a hoax! After all, a city of four million people requires a great deal more proof than a small town.

Arbitrary, escalating and nonsensical standards of proof. This distracts the uncritical from realizing that it is the Hoax propagandists who need to shoulder the burden of proof. (Which they never deliver.) This sort of chop logic is usually followed by a unilateral declaration of victory.

Now do you understand why this post was on topic, and why your silence about it speaks volumes?

Originally posted by DJW001

What's this? Who took this picture? The only person with a camera isn't pointing the carmera directly towards itself!!! How is that possible? And he's wearing sunglasses? How can he possibly operate a complicated piece of equipment like a camera wearing shades?

Argument from ignorance. Moon Hoax propagandists love to post pictures of reflections in the bubble helmet, claiming that the camera is not pointed in the right direction. This "evidence" is merely a reflection of their own ignorance of light, reflection and shadows. They also make spurious claims about how "difficult" it would be to operate equipment they themselves do not know how to use... like cameras.

DJ, do you realize you just had a conversation with yourself?
But anyway, your example is still off topic.
Try it with a photo from the Apollo moon landing simulation, then we can talk.

Originally posted by FoosMI didnt ask for criticism, I asked you to answer some questions.
Did I criticism you when you asked me to answer your question?
No.

Oh dear oh dear Foos.

I was really hoping for a substantive response, not just "no you". Nothing in your reply contains anything that furthers anyone's understanding of Apollo. You complain that I cannot take criticism while taking offence to criticism. You complain that I speculate in response to some answers, and then every answer you give consists primarily of speculation. You complain that I give incomplete answers, then answer my questions with basically a sentence entirely dismissing them all and respond to each of my answers with little more than a single sentence asking a reciprocal question.

Can you not see your own hypocrisy? You can't post complaining about something when you do the exact same thing in your post. You especially can't do this and then declare that you are correct because your uninformed and clearly ill-equipped speculation is for some reason superior to speculation backed up by reality.

Lets give some examples

Originally posted by FoosM
Dont be fooled by all that, you are assuming the videos are clear enough to see all the footprints match what you see in the pictures. They are not. So all they had to do is worry about footprints in the pictures and for that they could have easily added them in post.

You now make it clear that you think NASA may well have added footprints and details to photos "in post". However, you clearly have no experience in image analysis or editing and so you have proposed an action without a mechanism.

How would NASA add these footprints in postprocessing in the 1960s? In your reply you complained that I pointed out it would be very expensive to do re-takes, but in this post you now believe they employed people to somehow go through and match up footprints on these photos? This would be insanely expensive, and open up such a huge gap for leaking information it's untrue. All it would have taken was one person to surreptitiously copy a negative and the whole thing is busted wide open. This obviously did not happen, but apparently this does not matter to you.

I don't see any reply you made that is anything more than a trivial attempt to throw doubt on any response or to dismiss it in general. For example:

Originally posted by FoosM
Are you sure there were no vacuum chambers in use by NASA?
Are you sure what you were watching wasn't a special effect?

Why are you asking me questions, instead of answering these questions? Do you lack the capacity to research if NASA had a big enough vacuum chamber to fake a landing from orbit? Do you lack the capacity to list reasons to believe this was a special effect?

Of course you don't, so the question is: why didn't you?

Until your posts are anything but a long list of questions often without specific answers, coupled with speculation that you demand is correct, then why do you think anyone should believe anything you say? Debate is a two way street.

note:
exponent has still not answered all my questions.
And he has not clarified those he thought he answered.
Instead we get:

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosMI didnt ask for criticism, I asked you to answer some questions.
Did I criticism you when you asked me to answer your question?
No.

Oh dear oh dear Foos.

I was really hoping for a substantive response, not just "no you". Nothing in your reply contains anything that furthers anyone's understanding of Apollo. You complain that I cannot take criticism while taking offence to criticism. You complain that I speculate in response to some answers, and then every answer you give consists primarily of speculation. You complain that I give incomplete answers, then answer my questions with basically a sentence entirely dismissing them all and respond to each of my answers with little more than a single sentence asking a reciprocal question.

I fail to see how all that was relevant to Apollo, JW videos, or the many discrepancies/anomalies/lies/inconsistencies/theories brought up by myself and others.

Can you not see your own hypocrisy? You can't post complaining about something when you do the exact same thing in your post. You especially can't do this and then declare that you are correct because your uninformed and clearly ill-equipped speculation is for some reason superior to speculation backed up by reality.

Lets give some examples

Originally posted by FoosM
Dont be fooled by all that, you are assuming the videos are clear enough to see all the footprints match what you see in the pictures. They are not. So all they had to do is worry about footprints in the pictures and for that they could have easily added them in post.

You now make it clear that you think NASA may well have added footprints and details to photos "in post". However, you clearly have no experience in image analysis or editing and so you have proposed an action without a mechanism.

exponent, how do you know what I do for a living?
why do you sit there and make assumptions?
To bait me into telling you what I do for a living?
Well Im sorry but Im not going to tell you

All you have done is focus on what you think I dont do for a living, and not
look into if what I said is possible.
So we cant even go into a deeper discussion about it.
You killed it.
Too bad.

How would NASA add these footprints in postprocessing in the 1960s?

Are you telling me that photo compositing wasn't possible back in the 1960's?

In your reply you complained that I pointed out it would be very expensive to do re-takes, but in this post you now believe they employed people to somehow go through and match up footprints on these photos?

Match photos to what exactly?

This would be insanely expensive, and open up such a huge gap for leaking information it's untrue. All it would have taken was one person to surreptitiously copy a negative and the whole thing is busted wide open. This obviously did not happen, but apparently this does not matter to you.

What negative?
And who has access to them?

I don't see any reply you made that is anything more than a trivial attempt to throw doubt on any response or to dismiss it in general. For example:

Originally posted by FoosM
Are you sure there were no vacuum chambers in use by NASA?
Are you sure what you were watching wasn't a special effect?

Why are you asking me questions, instead of answering these questions? Do you lack the capacity to research if NASA had a big enough vacuum chamber to fake a landing from orbit? Do you lack the capacity to list reasons to believe this was a special effect?

Why would you need a vacuum chamber for a landing from orbit?
How did we get to that subject of orbits anyway?
I thought were talking about the simulation exercises that occurred on the moon set.

Of course you don't, so the question is: why didn't you?

Until your posts are anything but a long list of questions often without specific answers, coupled with speculation that you demand is correct, then why do you think anyone should believe anything you say? Debate is a two way street.

Your still up at bat, are you going to take a swing at a debate or what?

warning... profanity

Today I am proud to announce that 3Euros have generously been donated by Albino Galuppini, who runs the Bill Kaysing tribute site.
www.billkaysing.com...

2 more videos to go... I cant wait

reply to post by FoosM

But anyway, your example is still off topic.
Try it with a photo from the Apollo moon landing simulation, then we can talk.

Did you actually read the post? It thoroughly exposes the poverty of the arguments you have been presenting for over 300 pages. Again, your refusal to discuss the most fundamental premises of your "belief" speaks volumes.

reply to post by FoosM

Today I am proud to announce that 3Euros have generously been donated by Albino Galuppini, who runs the Bill Kaysing tribute site.
www.billkaysing.com...

2 more videos to go... I cant wait

Can you really not see how Jarrah mocks his own fans? A pirated RanMa video has equal importance to his single handed destruction of the scientific establishment?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But anyway, your example is still off topic.
Try it with a photo from the Apollo moon landing simulation, then we can talk.

Did you actually read the post? It thoroughly exposes the poverty of the arguments you have been presenting for over 300 pages. Again, your refusal to discuss the most fundamental premises of your "belief" speaks volumes.

I think you should be more concerned about the poverty of the counter-arguments that have been presented.
Especially towards JWs video series.

The counter-arguments that should be compelling and convincing if they are indeed backing true history, but instead are no better than that of amateur investigators arguing that the facts dont add up, that the claims of NASA and the USGOV having landed men on the moon are as believable as Godzilla walking the Earth.

This thread is a testament to the number of unanswered anomalies in the Apollo record.