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: 403share:
Originally posted by FoosM
The pictures of the moon come first!
How is that possible?
The photos are supposed to go in order!
Instead of the moon, it should have been photos of the Earth.
The numbers under the photos indicate their order, as far as I know.
I didn't quite understand your other question.
The image numbers indicate the actual sequence the photos were taken in a magazine. You can double-check the sequence by looking at the photo index.
Originally posted by FoosM
How do you explain this then?
That LPI page is sorting the images alphabetically, not numerically.
Hence the -10xxx images are listed before the -9xxx images.
Happens all the time to me on my computer when people send you files named things like "file1.ext," "file2.ext," etc. Sort them by name and "file11.ext" gets listed before "file2.ext."
edit on 29-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by FoosM
I just explained, how big of a crater would they want to make?
They wouldn't want any particular size, they have the engine and the surface, the size of the crater is immaterial. If it creates a tiny crater, then that's legitimate, if it creates a huge one, then that's legitimate.
If it created such a huge crater that it was unsafe or impossible, then it would also have done that for real, which is a dead giveaway. Why do you think they would be so stupid?
I think you got my point.
But let NASA make it for you... its also for DJ who doesnt think soil would blast all over the place:
1966 NASA Langley Research Center footage of jet blast erosion effects on different surfaces. These tests were performed in Langley's 60-ft. vacuum sphere and 55-ft. vacuum cylinder and were part of an investigation to study the impact of the Lunar Lander's propulsion systems on the lunar surface.
Every case a crater.
and
How do you account for this exponent?
these test creating craters, blasting sand all over the place but we have photos of no dust in footpads?
Foil on LM legs not damaged, ground not damaged, no build up of soil around the LM.
Everything neat and tidy for the Astronauts to make fresh footprints.
Links to what?
Independent scientists disagreeing with the depth of dust on the moon or similar.
I dont recall saying it that way, but anyway, I didnt say that happened, I said it could happen if the craft had made a large crater. But actually, yes there have been studies done on regolith displacement for future mission planning. I believe I made a post on it.
Originally posted by nataylor
That LPI page is sorting the images alphabetically, not numerically.
Hence the -10xxx images are listed before the -9xxx images.
Happens all the time to me on my computer when people send you files named things like "file1.ext," "file2.ext," etc. Sort them by name and "file11.ext" gets listed before "file2.ext."edit on 29-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)
Thats misleading.
The impression they give is that the photos are put in order.
Well Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
I can no longer assume the photo sequences are following the correct timeline.
reply to post by FoosM
Great. So instead of rehashing the stars debate we're going to rehash the crater debate. What does the film say at the very beginning? It's a scaled test. The scale factor is 19.6 times the model length, which means that the craters would have formed if the dust were loosely packed to a depth of 5 or 6 meters. It wasn't. Shall I fire up the usual YouTube videos of more recent tests?
1966 NASA Langley Research Center footage of jet blast erosion effects on different surfaces. These tests were performed in Langley's 60-ft. vacuum sphere and 55-ft. vacuum cylinder and were part of an investigation to study the impact of the Lunar Lander's propulsion systems on the lunar surface.
Great. So instead of rehashing the stars debate we're going to rehash the crater debate. What does the film say at the very beginning? It's a scaled test. The scale factor is 19.6 times the model length, which means that the craters would have formed if the dust were loosely packed to a depth of 5 or 6 meters. It wasn't. Shall I fire up the usual YouTube videos of more recent tests?
You can assume the numbering of photos on a magazine are in chronological order.
Originally posted by FoosM
I can no longer assume the photo sequences are following the correct timeline.
Originally posted by FoosM
I think you got my point.
But let NASA make it for you... its also for DJ who doesnt think soil would blast all over the place:
...
Every case a crater.
...
How do you account for this exponent?
Easily. If NASA were faking the landings, and their tests truly indicated a crater would be formed, then we would see a crater on the footage.
On the other hand, if they did it legitimately, then conditions may be different than what they estimated, and a crater may not have formed.
Why would they fake something using contradictory data? Can you give me a reasonable explanation for that?
I dont recall saying it that way, but anyway, I didnt say that happened, I said it could happen if the craft had made a large crater. But actually, yes there have been studies done on regolith displacement for future mission planning. I believe I made a post on it.
I look forward to the link.
This kid, while inteligent, has far from flawless logic.
To prove this, I will cite him.
"Moscow was not facing the moon at the time of the 'one small step' and as such could not have tracked the progress of the apollo mission, due to the fact that line of sight is required to receive transmissions."
This statement is both true and false. Yes, the satelite dishes on the ground cannot receive information from a satelite in space unless it has line of sight -- this part is indeed true.
This however doesn't mean it was impossible for moscow to independantly track the mission of apollo.
How? Very simple, a satelite network array. The only way he could prove empirically that it was impossible is to have on record every satelite owned by the soviets.
How could they track apollo's mission you ask? Very simple. You have a satelite in line of sight of the moon, which piggy backs this imformation to another satelite that is also in line of sight of the preceding satelite, which then transfers the information back to the ground.
His arguments are full of holes, this is just one of them -- he has 460 videos, I don't think I have time to prove all his logical errors.
This one however, is a glaringly simple problem, with a completely obvious solution to the problem.....
Kid is a grasping at straws.
P.S.
How can Buzz Aldrin get away with punching a dude square in the jaw when dude didn't do anything but say in all intents and purposes "Buzz, it's my opinion you are a fraud."
That was a clear cut case of assault.
To prove this, I will cite him.
"Moscow was not facing the moon at the time of the 'one small step' and as such could not have tracked the progress of the apollo mission, due to the fact that line of sight is required to receive transmissions."
This statement is both true and false. Yes, the satelite dishes on the ground cannot receive information from a satelite in space unless it has line of sight -- this part is indeed true.
This however doesn't mean it was impossible for moscow to independantly track the mission of apollo.
How? Very simple, a satelite network array. The only way he could prove empirically that it was impossible is to have on record every satelite owned by the soviets.
How could they track apollo's mission you ask? Very simple. You have a satelite in line of sight of the moon, which piggy backs this imformation to another satelite that is also in line of sight of the preceding satelite, which then transfers the information back to the ground.
His arguments are full of holes, this is just one of them -- he has 460 videos, I don't think I have time to prove all his logical errors.
This one however, is a glaringly simple problem, with a completely obvious solution to the problem.....
Kid is a grasping at straws.
P.S.
How can Buzz Aldrin get away with punching a dude square in the jaw when dude didn't do anything but say in all intents and purposes "Buzz, it's my opinion you are a fraud."
That was a clear cut case of assault.
reply to post by Laokin
Do you know how many satellites Russia had up there in 1969?
Which ones were aiming out to space to pick up signals??
This however doesn't mean it was impossible for moscow to independantly track the mission of apollo.
How? Very simple, a satelite network array. The only way he could prove empirically that it was impossible is to have on record every satelite owned by the soviets.
How could they track apollo's mission you ask? Very simple. You have a satelite in line of sight of the moon, which piggy backs this imformation to another satelite that is also in line of sight of the preceding satelite, which then transfers the information back to the ground.
Do you know how many satellites Russia had up there in 1969?
Which ones were aiming out to space to pick up signals??
Originally posted by Laokin
P.S.
How can Buzz Aldrin get away with punching a dude square in the jaw when dude didn't do anything but say in all intents and purposes "Buzz, it's my opinion you are a fraud."
That was a clear cut case of assault.
The thing is, that would have been the perfect time to take this whole subject to court.
Apollo would have been on trial as for being a fraud or not.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by FoosM
I think you got my point.
But let NASA make it for you... its also for DJ who doesnt think soil would blast all over the place:
...
Every case a crater.
...
How do you account for this exponent?
Easily. If NASA were faking the landings, and their tests truly indicated a crater would be formed, then we would see a crater on the footage.
Why would they have to have craters in their footage?
Maybe you have a hard time grasping the idea of lying to the public?
I just showed you examples of the craters being made in the tests.
You know that barely any crater at all was made during the landing.
There is your example of the two not matching.
How do you explain it?
You just saw dust flying all kinds of directions in the tests.
Yet no damage and no dust was found in the footpads of most missions.
How do you explain it?
link
www2.aero.psu.edu...
The first objective was to obtain high resolution plume flow field characteristics for the descent stage engine firing for the purpose of tracking the lunar soil debris cloud. The second objective was to obtain pressure forces and moments on the ascent stage vehicle due to plume interaction with the descent stage, as well as plume heating environments on the surface of the descent stage components in close proximity to the ascent stage engine plume.
Not my words...
Originally posted by FoosM
Yet no damage and no dust was found in the footpads of most missions.
Ver simply - what was the % of thrust used just before touchdown.
Why should there be any damage?
reply to post by FoosM
I will not make the obvious wisecrack,,, I will not make the obvious wisecrack... I will not make the obvious wisecrack....
If the whole lunar landing program were a hoax, why release this footage at all? After all, you claim that NASA was completely in control of all the information. Why not slap a "Top Secret" sticker on it and bury it in a locked filing cabinet?
Maybe you have a hard time grasping the idea of lying to the public?
I will not make the obvious wisecrack,,, I will not make the obvious wisecrack... I will not make the obvious wisecrack....
If the whole lunar landing program were a hoax, why release this footage at all? After all, you claim that NASA was completely in control of all the information. Why not slap a "Top Secret" sticker on it and bury it in a locked filing cabinet?
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by FoosM
Yet no damage and no dust was found in the footpads of most missions.
Ver simply - what was the % of thrust used just before touchdown.
Why should there be any damage?
Debris was flying long "just before touchdown"
Originally posted by FoosM
Debris was flying long "just before touchdown"
So what?
how about answering my questions, or will you avoid them as you avoid all questions that destroy the silly conspiracy theory!
reply to post by FoosM
>sigh<
Yet anbother outrageous,and ignorant claim??
PROVE that!
You made an absolute assertion. "...no dust..."
"no" = "none".
As in ZERO. So, it begs the question: Based on what evidence, that you possess? Were you there? Did you have the abilty to look up close?
OR....is this yet another FALSE claim? (The entire Apollo "hoax" is based on them....they are stock-in-trade for Jarrah White and his bunk).
What if ONE particle of regolith managed to make its way to one top of ONE pad? Then your assertion of "no dust" would be FALSE, right? Then, what are the odds that, in any casual photos where they are NOT focused on "looking" for "dust" on the landing pads, that a particle (or two, or three, or twenty or a hundred, scattered about] would be noticed??
How small were the smallest diameter regolith bits? The ones with smaller diameters would have less mass, yes?? (All else being equal, as in the material they are made of). When the force of the descent engine gasses interacted with any particle, in any manner at all (and, as they subsequently interacted with each other....caroming together....remember, the exhuast gasses were very localized, and there was NO AIR to stir things up, as is commonly seen on Earth).
Although they would not "billow" and "float"....having no terminal velocity issues at all, in a vacuum....they still will behave according to the laws of physics and motion. Depending on how 'elastic' (no , not "rubbery"....) the behavior will vary, as to whether there is any rebound height, on impact. Also, it is important to consider (and thoroughly understand) that the use of the term "dust" is deceptive....though a common enough word, it has a specific meaning in some people's minds, and can describe MANY different sizes and behaviors. It is used by "hoax" propagandists (I believe) disingenuously, here (and elsewhere), to implant a mental image in some minds....again, the "common-sense" terrestrial experience pops to mind, and people visualize it differently than it actually occus on the Moon, in a vacuum. (We also must understand the actual engine thrust settings, at touchdown....no where near "FULL" power. And, the time of engine cut-off, at what height above the surface. PLUS, the pads had up-turned rims.....ETC).
"Jarrah White" preys on this cognitve disconnect greatly, in his diatribes. He intentionally bamboozles, and confuses....
Really, there is little point in trying to explain this to only ONE member (who probably actually knows it already, and is playing games??) when the physics are well understood by most educated people. Of course, IF "Jarrah White" is such a "genius" (as claimed), then he too should have the intellectual honesty to admit comprehension on this.....but, as we know, he has another....
.... AGENDA! (Lying. Lies, more lies and damned lies, that's his modus operandi.
>sigh<
Yet anbother outrageous,and ignorant claim??
...no dust was found in the footpads....
PROVE that!
You made an absolute assertion. "...no dust..."
"no" = "none".
As in ZERO. So, it begs the question: Based on what evidence, that you possess? Were you there? Did you have the abilty to look up close?
OR....is this yet another FALSE claim? (The entire Apollo "hoax" is based on them....they are stock-in-trade for Jarrah White and his bunk).
What if ONE particle of regolith managed to make its way to one top of ONE pad? Then your assertion of "no dust" would be FALSE, right? Then, what are the odds that, in any casual photos where they are NOT focused on "looking" for "dust" on the landing pads, that a particle (or two, or three, or twenty or a hundred, scattered about] would be noticed??
How small were the smallest diameter regolith bits? The ones with smaller diameters would have less mass, yes?? (All else being equal, as in the material they are made of). When the force of the descent engine gasses interacted with any particle, in any manner at all (and, as they subsequently interacted with each other....caroming together....remember, the exhuast gasses were very localized, and there was NO AIR to stir things up, as is commonly seen on Earth).
Although they would not "billow" and "float"....having no terminal velocity issues at all, in a vacuum....they still will behave according to the laws of physics and motion. Depending on how 'elastic' (no , not "rubbery"....) the behavior will vary, as to whether there is any rebound height, on impact. Also, it is important to consider (and thoroughly understand) that the use of the term "dust" is deceptive....though a common enough word, it has a specific meaning in some people's minds, and can describe MANY different sizes and behaviors. It is used by "hoax" propagandists (I believe) disingenuously, here (and elsewhere), to implant a mental image in some minds....again, the "common-sense" terrestrial experience pops to mind, and people visualize it differently than it actually occus on the Moon, in a vacuum. (We also must understand the actual engine thrust settings, at touchdown....no where near "FULL" power. And, the time of engine cut-off, at what height above the surface. PLUS, the pads had up-turned rims.....ETC).
"Jarrah White" preys on this cognitve disconnect greatly, in his diatribes. He intentionally bamboozles, and confuses....
Really, there is little point in trying to explain this to only ONE member (who probably actually knows it already, and is playing games??) when the physics are well understood by most educated people. Of course, IF "Jarrah White" is such a "genius" (as claimed), then he too should have the intellectual honesty to admit comprehension on this.....but, as we know, he has another....
.... AGENDA! (Lying. Lies, more lies and damned lies, that's his modus operandi.
reply to post by Laokin
PLEASE do not misrepresent the encounter between Bart Sibrel and Buzz Aldrin!!!:
NO, it wasn't. Not in the opinion of the law, upon reviewing the facts and circumstances leading up to it. Of course, in a literal interpretation, one could assign it that term....BUT, the plaintiff would have had to press civil charges against the defendant. Bart Sibrel KNEW he was in the wrong, and knew better than to attempt a civil court trial....he would have been laughed out.
Firstly, .....in a nutshell, he was ambushed.
Secondly, prior to the actual short clip that is available to view, Mr. Sibrel was following Mr. Aldrin,and pestering him. (Could this be grounds for a counter-suit?? "Verbal abuse"??). Regardless, Mr. Sibrel was instigating this, from the outset. IMO, he got what he deserved....have you heard the audio?
Mr. Sibrel pushed Mr. Aldrin's buttons one too many times.....calling him directly to his face a "coward" and a "liar". Those were the last straws, after quite a build up. Sibrel is a serial pest, and an ignorant fool.
The only audio/video portion that is public begins with Sibrel:
"You're the one who said you walked on the Moon, when you didn't.....callin' a kettle black, if there's ... [garbled, unintelligible]..."
(overlapping dialogue)....
Aldrin: "Would you get away from me!?!"
Sibrel: "You're a coward, and a liar, and a [here, the punch garbles his word...sounds like he was trying to say "thief"...].
Sibrel DESERVED IT!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here....for the sake of FULL clarity, a longer clip than generally found by the people who keep repeating this story. (Most only show the last 40 seconds, or so).
That piece of crap Sibrel, (who also happens to be an insane religious fanatic, bible-thumper. His ENTIRE Moon "hoax" belief stems from that delusion....that "god" would not have allowed Mankind to travel off-planet. He belongs in a loony bin...).
Sibrel, and his ambush team.....lurking at a hotel where Buzz had just finished a speaking engagement. Sibrel is serving a summons, looks like. (A long-standing pest, he is NOT "news" to Buzz...). That is Buzz's daughter (or, maybe grand-daughter, not sure) with him, BTW:
PLEASE do not misrepresent the encounter between Bart Sibrel and Buzz Aldrin!!!:
P.S.
How can Buzz Aldrin get away with punching a dude square in the jaw when dude didn't do anything but say in all intents and purposes "Buzz, it's my opinion you are a fraud."
That was a clear cut case of assault.
NO, it wasn't. Not in the opinion of the law, upon reviewing the facts and circumstances leading up to it. Of course, in a literal interpretation, one could assign it that term....BUT, the plaintiff would have had to press civil charges against the defendant. Bart Sibrel KNEW he was in the wrong, and knew better than to attempt a civil court trial....he would have been laughed out.
Firstly, .....in a nutshell, he was ambushed.
Secondly, prior to the actual short clip that is available to view, Mr. Sibrel was following Mr. Aldrin,and pestering him. (Could this be grounds for a counter-suit?? "Verbal abuse"??). Regardless, Mr. Sibrel was instigating this, from the outset. IMO, he got what he deserved....have you heard the audio?
Mr. Sibrel pushed Mr. Aldrin's buttons one too many times.....calling him directly to his face a "coward" and a "liar". Those were the last straws, after quite a build up. Sibrel is a serial pest, and an ignorant fool.
The only audio/video portion that is public begins with Sibrel:
"You're the one who said you walked on the Moon, when you didn't.....callin' a kettle black, if there's ... [garbled, unintelligible]..."
(overlapping dialogue)....
Aldrin: "Would you get away from me!?!"
Sibrel: "You're a coward, and a liar, and a [here, the punch garbles his word...sounds like he was trying to say "thief"...].
Sibrel DESERVED IT!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here....for the sake of FULL clarity, a longer clip than generally found by the people who keep repeating this story. (Most only show the last 40 seconds, or so).
That piece of crap Sibrel, (who also happens to be an insane religious fanatic, bible-thumper. His ENTIRE Moon "hoax" belief stems from that delusion....that "god" would not have allowed Mankind to travel off-planet. He belongs in a loony bin...).
Sibrel, and his ambush team.....lurking at a hotel where Buzz had just finished a speaking engagement. Sibrel is serving a summons, looks like. (A long-standing pest, he is NOT "news" to Buzz...). That is Buzz's daughter (or, maybe grand-daughter, not sure) with him, BTW:
edit on 30 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: Bart Sibrel deserved it!
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
Maybe you have a hard time grasping the idea of lying to the public?
I will not make the obvious wisecrack,,, I will not make the obvious wisecrack... I will not make the obvious wisecrack....
If the whole lunar landing program were a hoax, why release this footage at all? After all, you claim that NASA was completely in control of all the information. Why not slap a "Top Secret" sticker on it and bury it in a locked filing cabinet?
Well let me ask you this question.
Why completely erase the one tool that achieved so much ?
The Saturn 5?
Robert Strange McNamara (June 9, 1916 – July 6, 2009)[4] was an American business executive and the eighth Secretary of Defense, serving under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968, during which time he played a large role in escalating the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.[5] Following that he served as President of the World Bank from 1968 until 1981. McNamara was responsible for the institution of systems analysis in public policy, which developed into the discipline known today as policy analysis.
The death sentence finally came in 1968. NASA was forced to kill all plans for future Saturn production in August of that year, including early procurement for SA-516, SA-517, and Saturn 1Bs SA-215 and SA-216. The end came weeks before the first manned Apollo 7 mission and months before the third Saturn 5 propelled three Apollo 8 astronauts into lunar orbit.
Soon after the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969, NASA shelved plans for an Apollo 20 mission. Instead, a two-stage Saturn 5 was assigned to orbit an Apollo Applications "Dry Workshop". Several Saturn 1B rockets would carry crews to the station. Plans eventually called for SA-513 to orbit the workshop, which was renamed "Skylab" in 1970. SA-514 and SA-515 would launch Apollo 18 and 19, respectively, after the Skylab program ended.
So he basically did this right before he left. Killing the space program before it even got started. LOL.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.spacelaunchreport.com...
reply to post by FoosM
As usual, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. They were enormously expensive to build and launch. Do you suppose that might have something to do with? Also, there aren't too many mission profiles that they would be appropriate for: launching heavy payloads to distant planets and extremely heavy payloads into near Earth orbit. Most of the unmanned satellite missions require much smaller boosters.
Well let me ask you this question.
Why completely erase the one tool that achieved so much ?
The Saturn 5?
As usual, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. They were enormously expensive to build and launch. Do you suppose that might have something to do with? Also, there aren't too many mission profiles that they would be appropriate for: launching heavy payloads to distant planets and extremely heavy payloads into near Earth orbit. Most of the unmanned satellite missions require much smaller boosters.
edit on 30-3-2011 by DJW001 because:
Edit to correct typo.
Originally posted by FoosM
Why would they have to have craters in their footage?
Maybe you have a hard time grasping the idea of lying to the public?
Why would they lie about something which was empirically determinable? That would be as stupid as lying about the speed of light. Do you think NASA just lied for no reason whatsoever? Maybe for fun?
I just showed you examples of the craters being made in the tests.
You know that barely any crater at all was made during the landing.
There is your example of the two not matching.
How do you explain it?
The tests did not match the landing, if NASA was faking the scene then why would they make their faked scene different to their tests?