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: 411
377
<< 408  409  410    412  413  414 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I cant believe people still think we didn't go to the moon, real ignorance displayed here. Im now going to destroy all hoax believers in one single post. We went to the moon - we got rock samples. FACT 1, the robots of the time could not be engineered to pick up rocks and return them to earth. FACT 2, only sending people could we retrieve rocks. (we're talking about machines that would have had to drive without assistance from ground control, search, dig, scoop up, put in container, return to ship, oh and plant 7 mirrors in specific areas. Could not be done back then)

check and mate.



Well Im sorry to disappoint you but the Russians were doing all that.
Yes they didnt exactly return rocks, but the rest they did.
But Im surprised you think that science wasnt advanced enough to send probes, but
they were advanced enough to send men, which is more difficult.




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Im sorry to disappoint you but the Russians were doing all that.
Yes they didnt exactly return rocks, but the rest they did.
But Im surprised you think that science wasnt advanced enough to send probes, but
they were advanced enough to send men, which is more difficult.


You misunderstand, i'm not saying they couldn't sent probes, only they couldn't program robots back then do to those certain things. Don't say they could, they couldn't. Im sorry to disappoint you, but the Russians couldnt. Iv actually researched computing for years i know for a fact the first machines capable those sorts of things weren't around. It wasn't more difficult because they did it lol. Robotics was at a certain point but not at that level.

And even then, the fact remains never mind the rest, robots never returned rocks, so the only way we could have got them is by going their ourselves. Unless you can demonstrate how we could have gotten those rocks back , plus how a robot could position the mirrors, you're entire position is a joke.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Im sorry to disappoint you but the Russians were doing all that.
Yes they didnt exactly return rocks, but the rest they did.
But Im surprised you think that science wasnt advanced enough to send probes, but
they were advanced enough to send men, which is more difficult.


You misunderstand, i'm not saying they couldn't sent probes, only they couldn't program robots back then do to those certain things. Don't say they could, they couldn't. Im sorry to disappoint you, but the Russians couldnt. Iv actually researched computing for years i know for a fact the first machines capable those sorts of things weren't around. It wasn't more difficult because they did it lol. Robotics was at a certain point but not at that level.

And even then, the fact remains never mind the rest, robots never returned rocks, so the only way we could have got them is by going their ourselves. Unless you can demonstrate how we could have gotten those rocks back , plus how a robot could position the mirrors, you're entire position is a joke.


First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.
Second, inform us if the Surveyors had any retro-reflectors.
Third, did the USSR return soil from the moon with unmanned vehicles yes or no?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.

What makes you think that someone has to prove the rocks came from the moon, but you don't have to prove they came from Antarctica?

Assuming your preferred conclusion is the default conclusion is faulty logic.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.

What makes you think that someone has to prove the rocks came from the moon, but you don't have to prove they came from Antarctica?

Assuming your preferred conclusion is the default conclusion is faulty logic.


I dont have to prove anything, its up to NASA.
They are the ones who made the claim.

and if anyone wants to defend them, well then they have to come up
with the evidence.


edit on 1-4-2011 by FoosM because: added text



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
One of the things I wonder, why is it that none of the astronauts accidentally jumped too high.
They all basically managed to keep low to the ground.



Lets not forget, they were in a weightless environment for a period of time and would have to adjust to a new type of gravity. Even after they fell, they didnt manage to go to high when trying to get up.


And why didnt they fall more often, especially in the early missions?


Its almost like they cant stay down...

I understand the suits and PLSS adds weight.


But still we never saw anything like that.


Notice how shaky the camera is?
And the astronauts managed to take composed blur free photos.




This video shows that the angles of the space men are leaning backwards at some points and verticle at others, Apparently its supposed to be filmed on a slope.
Take note at the beggining, the spacemen are leaning backwards then later they stand verticle.



And what about the rover? How heavy was that?
Hitting a bump, what kept it from flying off into the air?
Like things that they threw that would go for miles... ok many yards.





The basic principle behind NASA's fake moonwalk.
Other variations were also tested and used in the final filming of the moon hoax. These methods were combined with slow motion and other tricks like helium balloons inside the actor's suit, magnetic floors tilt in various degrees,and as ever their favorite film processing.



Puppets on a string...


I know, its a lot of videos.
But a fundamental part of science is observation.
What we expected to see happen on the moon did not happen.
And thats a problem.
What I see is not a limitation of the moon, its a limitation to the special effects teams.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



....and if anyone wants to defend them, well then they have to come up
with the evidence.


There are loads of evidence. It is only "Jarrah White propagandists" (his very, very, very tiny "fan base") who keep their heads in the regolith, and fail to engage their critical brains.....so enamoured are they of this oddly-sounding shrill-meister (hardly a "genius") who calls himself the "MoonFaker". (Does he? Call himself that? Or, is it the title of his "videos"? Hard to tell, sometimes.....).


Yttrium

Wiki 'says':

en.wikipedia.org...


Yttrium is almost always found combined with the lanthanoids in rare earth minerals and is never found in nature as a free element. Its only stable isotope, 89Y, is also its only naturally occurring isotope.....

......Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm (dry weight average of 23 ppm) and in sea water at 9 ppt. Lunar rock samples collected during the Apollo program have a relatively high yttrium content....




@ 1:00 --"...upon analysis they found that there were a number of elements, including yttrium, which existed in a much, much higher abundance on the Moon...."


PAY ATTENTION to the other parts regarding yttrium: It OXIDIZES readily. I hope you realize this means that, in the presence of oxygen, it reacts. On the Moon? Well.....not much O2, is there???


The Great Moon "Hoax".

Further reading (and, I predict, I can probably name, the ones who WON'T read it...):

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

www.clavius.org...
(Direct link to Clavius discussion of Apollo returned Lunar samples)

(ETC....)

I have more.....the " genius from 'Down Under' " ("Oz") has only poor 'science', and incredibly bad critical thinking skills. OR....the "genius" is all in the marketing, Baby!!!! THAT is his real "genius", I'm afraid........


edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well. FoosM, you've convinced me. I've been a fool all these years believing that NASA spent billions of dollars designing and building all that equipment and then actually using it to go to the Moon. The worst part is that it means that all the scientists I know personally were lying to me all that time. I can never look "Joff" Landis in the eye again. Oh, and April Fool! (Somebody had to do it. This whole board has been cranky today. Everybody needs to lighten up!)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Still waiting for backinblack's maths I think?


A picture paints a thousand words..
Look at pics of how high the astronauts could jump on the moon and then try to tell me gravity doesn't affect F=MA..
I'm over this silly debate..

Nat has been great, others not so much...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

PAY ATTENTION to the other parts regarding yttrium: It OXIDIZES readily. I hope you realize this means that, in the presence of oxygen, it reacts. On the Moon? Well.....not much O2, is there???



Ok, let me ask this.
Does yttrium react the minute it comes in contact with air or O2?
If so, were not the moon rocks exposed to O2 the minute they went into the LM?
And if they were, then how can you tell the difference between one that was found on Earth or taken from the moon?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



If so, were not the moon rocks exposed to O2 the minute they went into the LM?


Were the sample bags sealed?
I know in a vid about moon rocks they were studying them in an airtight chamber..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


reply to post by backinblack
 


Oh, for criminy's sake!!!!

THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED about thirty times, in this thread! (and in others):


Look at pics of how high the astronauts could jump on the moon and then try to tell me gravity doesn't affect F=MA..


Back to this, are we??? /forehead slap/

(I mean, the "jumping issue"...Really, if you "HOAX" followers would, please, compare notes, once in a while??? HOW MANY "hoax" propagandists claim the Astronauts were "on wires"?? Hmmmm? IF THAT WERE TRUE, then why didn't they "jump" much, much, much 'higher'??? Since, that seems to stick in your craw?)

Get it yet?

No?

You cannot have the claim of "wires" to account for the gravity effects....to infer that the Lunar EVAs were shot on Earth, and THEN turn around and complain about "how high" they could "jump"!!!

Get this straight, would you please?


FOR THE RECORD:

They were in PRESSURIZED suits, with minimal flexibility. ONLY the bare flexibility needed, to perform their functions. (Wrap your legs up, with cloth strips....like an Egyptian mummy, say, for example.....)

OH, and to add......please RESEARCH how much MASS the sutis, and PLSSs added. YES, on the Moon, the "weight" of that mass was "less"....but STILL THERE WAS MASS! Inertia. INERTIA!!! Inertia doesn't care about gravitational fields, and acceleration due to gravity.

INERTIA is all about the MASS.

(I think THIS is your fatal flaw, in understanding of the preceeding 10+ pages of "baseball throwing".....)....


THIS example (back to the "mummy's legs") merely to simulate the restrictions on their normal, unfettered motion of leg movements....GET IT YET???

How much more, how many more times, must these basic facts be explained? We are patient, beyond patience actually. But, this is bordering on childish*, sorry.

*("childish" in the sense of the sorts of games that children may play...such as when they first learn, in English, the power of the word "why"....if you've never experienced this, then you are lucky....)













edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



How much more, how many more times, must these basic facts be explained? We are patient, beyond patience actually. But, this is bordering on childish*, sorry.

*("childish" in the sense of the sorts of games that children may play...such as when they first learn, in English, the power of the word "why"....if you've never experienced this, then you are lucky....)


You're insane weed..
I wasn't commenting about a hoax at all..
If you bothered to read posts before jumping in with your uninformed rant, you would see we were discussing the force of gravity on the equation F=MA..

You need to get out more...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I actually gave you a STAR for this post.

Because, unlike another poster, YOU noted that in fact the Lunar samples WERE sealed....(to the best ability possible) so that when examined, back on Earth, they could be observed in a neutral atmosphere environment. IIRC.....in a vacuum chamber. BUT, possibly a nitrogen/inert gas, at normal pressure. Will have to look that up).

I didn't mean to use the "childish" reference specifically to you, per se (BTW)....but to illustrate how that particular children's game is similar, in some ways, to certain postings on this thread.

Again.....the asking of pertinent and intelligent questions should be encouraged. BUT.....the repeated 'baiting' (which is the example of the over-use of "why", that a child learns early on) isn't useful......
edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I didn't mean to use the "childish" reference specifically to you, per se (BTW)....but to illustrate how that particular children's game is similar, in some ways, to certain postings on this thread.


I'll just accept that you took my post out of context having seen others post similar words..

As to your "WHY"..
Mate, I have 3 sons and 5 grand-kids.. I know that word well..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Im sorry to disappoint you but the Russians were doing all that.
Yes they didnt exactly return rocks, but the rest they did.
But Im surprised you think that science wasnt advanced enough to send probes, but
they were advanced enough to send men, which is more difficult.


You misunderstand, i'm not saying they couldn't sent probes, only they couldn't program robots back then do to those certain things. Don't say they could, they couldn't. Im sorry to disappoint you, but the Russians couldnt. Iv actually researched computing for years i know for a fact the first machines capable those sorts of things weren't around. It wasn't more difficult because they did it lol. Robotics was at a certain point but not at that level.

And even then, the fact remains never mind the rest, robots never returned rocks, so the only way we could have got them is by going their ourselves. Unless you can demonstrate how we could have gotten those rocks back , plus how a robot could position the mirrors, you're entire position is a joke.


Does anyone do any research before posting things here?

The Lunokhod Rovers were piloted by remote control on Earth in the Soviet Union.
Not pre-programed.
www.nasa.gov...

And on a side note, Jarrah has been on a tear getting various videos removed from Youtube. He even put one up whining about being cyber-bullied. For someone like Jarrah, who has been extremely vitriolic in the past to his critics, it's pretty hypocritical and not to mention.... pathetic.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.

What makes you think that someone has to prove the rocks came from the moon, but you don't have to prove they came from Antarctica?

Assuming your preferred conclusion is the default conclusion is faulty logic.


Because only about 30 rocks have ever been found in Antarctica.
The Apollo missions brought back 800+ pounds of lunar rocks.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
A picture paints a thousand words..
Look at pics of how high the astronauts could jump on the moon and then try to tell me gravity doesn't affect F=MA..
I'm over this silly debate..

Nat has been great, others not so much...

Why don't you try reading my posts? Four people now including me have done or approved the calculations including gravity's effects. The summary: It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to speed, as mass remains the same no matter what the gravity.

I'm in no way denying any effect from gravity, we were trying to make it simple so the difference between mass + weight could be explained. The fact that you immediately went to insulting me is pretty frustrating, as you clearly didn't even bother to read my post properly.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


OOOOHHHHH!!! This thread is about Jarrah!!! Let's examine this, more closely please:


And on a side note, Jarrah has been on a tear getting various videos removed from Youtube.


I think this is VERY relevant, to character and purpose, of this thread's subject and TOPIC!!!

FAIR GAME.

What say ye, else???
edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: friend's computer SpaceBar is junk....!



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



The summary: It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to speed, as mass remains the same no matter what the gravity.

I'm in no way denying any effect from gravity, we were trying to make it simple so the difference between mass + weight could be explained. The fact that you immediately went to insulting me is pretty frustrating, as you clearly didn't even bother to read my post properly.


And I think the math is flawed..
IMO gravity would have a much larger impact on speed in a vertical situation..
BTW, where exactly did I insult you//



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 408  409  410    412  413  414 >>

log in

join