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: 414
377
<< 411  412  413    415  416  417 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What is this off topic remark supposed to mean?


The title of this thread is "Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!" I was pointing out that your agenda would be to prove that even an insolent child like Jarrah can pose questions that cannot be answered. I have no disagreement with that premise. It is precisely by engaging difficult questions that new knowledge is acquired. Jarrah's problem is that he refuses to accept any answer he does not like, based entirely upon his own peevish beliefs. He refuses to live in any reality but one of his own imagining.



jra

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


What sort of delusional fantasy alternate universe world do you live in?


The Japanese craft 'broke down' after it's illicit lunar rendevous with LROC. IIRC. Two foreign satellites link up in lunar orbit for data gathering experiment. A few days later, one of the satellites dies.


HUH???


You think....you actually sat there, and wrote.....that the LRO/LCROSS satellite actually rendezvoused with the Japanese Kaguya??? Major forehead slap, required here I'm afraid......


SayonaraJupiter has a great number of the details wrong (about 99% of them), but the LRO did perform a joint experiment with another orbiting satellite. However, it was with Chandrayaan-1 and not Kaguya and there was no physical link up between the two spacecrafts.


Bistatic RADAR experiment with LRO

On 21 August 2009 Chandrayaan-1 along with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was used to perform a bistatic radar experiment to detect the presence of water ice on the lunar surface. In this experiment, Chandrayaan emanated RADAR pulses which, after reflection from the surface, were picked up by the receivers of both the Chandrayaan and the LRO. Both receivers, Mini-SAR in Chandrayaan and Mini-RF in LRO, were pointed at the Erlanger crater for four minutes during which the observations were made. In March 2010, it was reported that the Mini-Sar experiment onboard the Chandrayaan-1 had discovered cold dark spots which are hypothesized to contain an estimated "at least 600 million metric tonnes" of water-ice held within northern polar craters.


Eight days later contact with Chandrayaan-1 was lost due to its power supply overheating. Chandrayaan-1 had issues with thermal shielding/control from the very beginning of its mission and the ISRO did everything they could to keep the overheating spacecraft cool during its time in Lunar orbit.

India will get a second chance with Chandrayaan-2, which will be an orbiter / lander / rover combo and will be a joint project between the ISRO and the RFSA.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


What sort of delusional fantasy alternate universe world do you live in?


The universe that posts late at night after a few brewskies?
Thanks for pointing out my error.

CORRECTION: I mistakenly wrote that it was the Japanese craft that rendezvoused with LRO when it was actually the Indian craft which linked up using lazer guidance systems. And it was the Indian craft, Chandaraayan-1, which broke it's star sensor only a few days after the lunar rendezvous.

So, Chandrayaan-1 was working in conjunction with NASA for a coordinated lunar orbital experiment in late August 2009. A few days later it is a hunk of space trash.. Would the Indian craft be capable of defending itself against a lazer attack? Probably no. The Indian craft would simply overheat and eventually break down. End of mission. The CIA issues a great sigh of relief
and then NASA comes out with a new set of digitally enhanced photographs explaining how everything is back to normality. They have Apollo landing sites and LM/S-IVB crash sites! The moon landings were really real, really, trust us!



A member of the science advisory board of Chandrayaan-1 said that it is difficult to ascertain reasons for the loss of contact.[80] ISRO Chairman -Madhavan Nair- said that due to very high radiation, power-supply units controlling both the computer systems on board failed, snapping the communication connectivity.[81] However, information released later showed that the power supply failed due to overheating. Source wiki

edit on 4/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags


jra

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
CORRECTION: I mistakenly wrote that it was the Japanese craft that rendezvoused with LRO when it was actually the Indian craft which linked up using lazer guidance systems.


I don't know of either probes having a "lazer guidance system". They each had lasers for creating topographical maps, but I don't know if any laser guidance systems. And what do you mean by "link up" exactly?


And it was the Indian craft, Chandaraayan-1, which broke it's star sensor only a few days after the lunar rendezvous.


It broke before the joint experiment with the LRO actually.


So, Chandrayaan-1 was working in conjunction with NASA for a coordinated lunar orbital experiment in late August 2009. A few days later it is a hunk of space trash..


As I said in my previous post, Chandrayaan-1 started experiencing thermal shielding issues right near the start of there mission, which was before the LRO was even launched. The spacecraft had some flaws, but this is rocket science after all. This was also India's first spacecraft to be sent beyond Earth orbit, so it's still quite an accomplishment even if the mission ended prematurely.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



As I said in my previous post, Chandrayaan-1 started experiencing thermal shielding issues right near the start of there mission, which was before the LRO was even launched. The spacecraft had some flaws, but this is rocket science after all. This was also India's first spacecraft to be sent beyond Earth orbit, so it's still quite an accomplishment even if the mission ended prematurely.


Didn't NASA help India with this project??


jra

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Didn't NASA help India with this project??


Yes, by contributing two instruments to the project (Moon Mineralogy Mapper and miniSAR), but the spacecraft itself was designed and built by India as far as I know.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
No Crater
No Crater
No Crater
and Mistakes.

We are here to talk about no craters under the LM and owning up to mistakes, and lies.

JW covers both in the following videos:






Now here I want to discuss about intellectual dishonesty.
I stated earlier that Gene Cernan, who has claimed to have gone to the moon twice, has stated that a crater would have been made if the engine were to be running while landing. So thats why they had to cut the engines prior to landing.

Watch Part 1 @ 7:00

Here is the Apollo 17 landing:


Did that look like the engine was cut off prior to landing?


113:01:42 Cernan: Stand by for touchdown.
113:01:43 Schmitt: Stand by. 25 feet, down at 2. Fuel's good. 20 feet. Going down at 2. 10 feet. 10 feet.
113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact. (Pause)
113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) Stop, push. Engine stop; Engine Arm; Proceed; Command Override, Off; Mode Control, Att(itude) Hold; PGNS, Auto.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I asked in an earlier post, did Cernan lie?

So far nobody has given a proper answer.
And then later, somebody will claim that all issues brought forth by hoax proponents have been fully answered. Well thats intellectual dishonesty.

So I'll want to give Apollo defenders another chance to explain the inconsistencies between eyewitness, theories, photography and reported accounts when it comes to these "non" craters. And please dont ask what inconsistencies, JW has pointed several out in his video I just posted.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 


There's quite a difference between debating a fellow astrophysicist who disagrees versus debating an unqualified loon like Jarrah White.


Mate, he said "Bring it on"...
Who was he referring too if not the likes of JW ??

BTW, how many astrophysicist in this thread??


Plait was referring to people that actually know what they are talking about. They are called: scientists.

Jarrah is a white trash, closet case.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


Plait was referring to people that actually know what they are talking about. They are called: scientists.

Jarrah is a white trash, closet case.


Define scientist...
Last time I looked no definition of a scientist demands a piece of paper..

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

BTW, his no crater vids have some merit and I've always stated that's one bit of Apollo that leaves me on the fence..



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 


Plait was referring to people that actually know what they are talking about. They are called: scientists.

Jarrah is a white trash, closet case.


Define scientist...
Last time I looked no definition of a scientist demands a piece of paper..

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

BTW, his no crater vids have some merit and I've always stated that's one bit of Apollo that leaves me on the fence..


Define scientist?

Jarrah is the same guy that flollows Ralph Rene..... you know, the same Ralph Rene that claims he could reduce Einstein's theory of relativity to an absurdity? L O L,

How about the entire crew that got the Apollo to the moon? 400,000 people.

You prove that it was all fake......please, show it was all fake.

I'm gonna go with scientist from all over the world......not some jackass from Oz that thinks he smarter then the wold's scientists



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Face it, SJ. You don't have the faintest clues what you're talking about.....you see some wanker say something, you buy it hook, line and sinker.....not even properly taking time to understand it first.

AND....some others come along, give you THREE stars?? For a post of nonsense?

(What does that tell you about "hoax" believers, hmmmm?)

"lazer (sic) guidance"??? LOL!!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 


Plait was referring to people that actually know what they are talking about. They are called: scientists.

Jarrah is a white trash, closet case.


Define scientist...
Last time I looked no definition of a scientist demands a piece of paper..

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

BTW, his no crater vids have some merit and I've always stated that's one bit of Apollo that leaves me on the fence..


Define scientist?

Jarrah is the same guy that flollows Ralph Rene..... you know, the same Ralph Rene that claims he could reduce Einstein's theory of relativity to an absurdity? L O L,

How about the entire crew that got the Apollo to the moon? 400,000 people.

You prove that it was all fake......please, show it was all fake.

I'm gonna go with scientist from all over the world......not some jackass from Oz that thinks he smarter then the wold's scientists



So what do all the scientists around the world have to say about the missing craters?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Face it, SJ. You don't have the faintest clues what you're talking about.....you see some wanker say something, you buy it hook, line and sinker.....not even properly taking time to understand it first.

AND....some others come along, give you THREE stars?? For a post of nonsense?

(What does that tell you about "hoax" believers, hmmmm?)

"lazer (sic) guidance"??? LOL!!!!



Face it, Weed. Have you seen the front page of ATS lately? The star sensor on ATS is broken. Just like the star sensor on Chandayaan-1 was broken.


Do you think the Chandrayaan-1 machine was advanced enough to know if it were being hit by powerful space attack lazers? It's just a speculation of mine.


The Chandrayaan 1 spacecraft, India’s moon orbiting satellite was almost lost earlier this year, Indian Space Research Organization revealed, as the star tracking system overheated and malfunctioned. The system helps determine and maintain the spacecraft’s orientation. Engineers were able to patch in the gyroscopes and another instrument to help maneuver the spacecraft, but they are not sure how long this jury-rigged system will work. Source www.universetoday.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No Crater
No Crater
No Crater
and Mistakes.

We are here to talk about no craters under the LM and owning up to mistakes, and lies.



FoosM thanks for posting this 2009 Jarrah White series which expertly summarizes the No Crater debate. Some new things I learned from this series:
1. The large clods of lunar regolith pictured on the footpads of early landers. They are quite big.
2. John Carmack, legendary creator of early 1990's videogames Doom and Quake, an expert in using a video card to generate 3D worlds on a computer screen, founder of Armadillo Space- - he built that rocket that hovers at 500 lbf thrust and it tore up the concrete! That was pretty incredible right there.


What I saw in this series:
1. No Craters, but fluffy regolith surrounding the landing sites. Fluffy regolith is the best kind of regolith for making astronaut footprints.
2. Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene and Jarrah White settling the No Crater debate. In other words, THEY BROUGHT IT whereas the Phil Plaits and JayUtahs of the world are helplessly attached to the official NASA script are outgunned by the preponderance of the evidence which is the photos of each lunar lander having absolutely NO CRATERS underneath any one of them.

If anyone truly deserves any stars in this thread then it would be FoosM for staying on topic. This thread is about the anomalies. And just so we know that we are speaking the same language here...

An anomaly is any occurrence or object that is strange, unusual, or unique. It can also mean a discrepancy or deviation from an established rule, trend, or pattern. Source Wiki



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

2. Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene and Jarrah White settling the No Crater debate. In other words, THEY BROUGHT IT whereas the Phil Plaits and JayUtahs of the world are helplessly attached to the official NASA script are outgunned by the preponderance of the evidence which is the photos of each lunar lander having absolutely NO CRATERS underneath any one of them.


And how!

It went pretty quiet in here. Nobody wants to stick their neck out and state that Cernan either lied or was telling the truth. I can understand how difficult it is to defend this topic point to point when there is so many contradictions made by NASA et alia. Most debunking websites just dont cover all the issues but state, they have debunked the likes of JW.


I mean think how absurd it all is.
The first time the LM lands on the moon it lands with men on it!
Really?
Were they out of their minds?
Based on what evidence did they think that it was going to be successful the first try and all other attempts afterwards? Where are these tests of the LM landing with its engine blasting away? How come this is not public information? Whats NASA hiding?

Prior to Apollo

Five of Surveyor's seven missions made successful unmanned Moon landings

And what were they for?

The American robotic Surveyor program was part of an effort to locate a safe site on the Moon for a human landing and test under actual lunar conditions


Failure rate aside, there were seven Apollo missions that had to land. At two of the locations the Surveyor didnt make it. Did they still land those Apollo missions there anyway? Or at locations that were not "surveyed"?
Does that even make sense?
No.






en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



It went pretty quiet in here. Nobody wants to stick their neck out and state that Cernan either lied or was telling the truth. I can understand how difficult it is to defend this topic point to point when there is so many contradictions made by NASA et alia. Most debunking websites just dont cover all the issues but state, they have debunked the likes of JW.


Since I am not able to hear the audio on the videos you posted I have no idea what Cernan said or in what context. All I know is that when the contact light went off, they were still about a meter above the surface, at which point they would shut down the engines. I will stick my neck out and say whatever it is he said, Jarrah White has either fabricated it or taken out of context or distorted it in some way.

Incidentally, you do realize that the successful Surveyor missions proved that they could land the LM safely.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
So funny how for the new *cancelled* missions they show the lunar landers NOT making craters. And these landers are like twice the size of the LM. We still have the blue flame coming out of the nozzle though, lol.


Mission accomplished indeed






Count on Altair for many happy landings


With all the wisdom that NASA has accumulated over the years.
With the advancement of computers and materials. We should be
back on the moon in no time at all, right?
No time.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



It went pretty quiet in here. Nobody wants to stick their neck out and state that Cernan either lied or was telling the truth. I can understand how difficult it is to defend this topic point to point when there is so many contradictions made by NASA et alia. Most debunking websites just dont cover all the issues but state, they have debunked the likes of JW.


Since I am not able to hear the audio on the videos you posted I have no idea what Cernan said or in what context. All I know is that when the contact light went off, they were still about a meter above the surface, at which point they would shut down the engines. I will stick my neck out and say whatever it is he said, Jarrah White has either fabricated it or taken out of context or distorted it in some way.

Incidentally, you do realize that the successful Surveyor missions proved that they could land the LM safely.


No it didnt prove they could land the LM safely.
How could it prove they could land the LM safely?

How can you not hear the audio on the videos?
Cernan said they had to cut the engines so that the LM would create a crater.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How can you not hear the audio on the videos?


I don't have an audio card on my home computer so I won't waste my time watching videos or playing games.


Cernan said they had to cut the engines so that the LM would create a crater.


Would or wouldn't create a crater?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



How can you not hear the audio on the videos?


I don't have an audio card on my home computer so I won't waste my time watching videos or playing games.


I guess that makes sense.
I just wondered how you managed to watched JW's videos last time.
Also, dont you think forums are more time wasters than games and videos?





Cernan said they had to cut the engines so that the LM would create a crater.


Would or wouldn't create a crater?



Oops sorry,
Cernan said because the LM would create a crater, and also back blast, they cut their engines and dropped.
Was he telling the truth?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 411  412  413    415  416  417 >>

log in

join