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: 418
377
<< 415  416  417    419  420  421 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


This is getting silly, you have two images of a nozzle buckled so that it fits the ground shape. What exactly do you want in evidence?




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I can see the buckle.
I cant see any evidence that it was due to it hitting against the ground.
And why would it not be in the transcripts?
Well, they do make note that the landing was quite hard:


104:42:22 Irwin: 10 feet. Minus 1.

104:42:27 Irwin: 8 feet. Minus 1.

104:42:29 Irwin: Contact. (Pause) Bam!

104:42:36 Scott: Okay, Houston. The Falcon is on the Plain at Hadley.

104:42:40 Mitchell: Roger, Roger, Falcon.

104:42:48 Irwin: No denying that. We had contact.


Of course, they couldn't see the engine nozzle at this point.

Once they go out for the EVA, Scott does mention it:


119:57:14 Scott: Tell the Program Manager (Jim McDivitt) I guess I got his engine bell. (Laughs) It's a little rise right under the center of the LM. The rear leg's in a crater and the rim of the crater is right underneath the engine bell.

119:57:32 Allen: Roger, Dave. Jim got the message.

119:57:33 Scott: Okay. Sorry about that Jim, but IFR landings, you know.

edit on 5-4-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by FoosM
 


This is getting silly, you have two images of a nozzle buckled so that it fits the ground shape. What exactly do you want in evidence?


Show me in the photos where the engine hit the ground.
Whats more, I dont see any "brushed ground" due to the exhaust either.
Maybe the crane operator wasn't paying attention and dropped the LM a little too hard.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

And....you responded exactly as arrogant (and wrong) as I expected....THIS, after FoosM went on about how it were only the "Apollo defenders" who were rude:

OK numb nuts..I'll make it simple..
FORCE = MASS X GRAVITY...
That easier for you??

No doubt, by now.....have you seen your mistake? Are you contrite, yet?
If not ---- "G" is generally considered a specific value....it is defined as the acceleration due to Gravity ....of EARTH'S gravity, specifically.
SO, using "G" in that case is not proper, since the discussion was about the forces from the Lunar Module descent engine, correct? Specifically, the gasses, when accelerated by the thrusting effects of the engine....they have a MASS, yes? AND, the rate of ACCELERATION that they are undergoing (completely irrespective of any forces of local gravity, in this instance) determines the FORCE that is exerted, by the exhaust flow.
NOW....where "gravity" comes into play is regarding the spacecraft itself....in this case, using the MOON'S Acceleration rates, for ITS gravity field......then you can determine the "weight" of the vehicle, within that specific gravitational field.
But, its MASS is the same, regardless.
Can you see your mistakes, now...yet? Is this clearer?


And someone stared you for that??
Weed, you truly amaze me..
My debate was off topic and about a baseball, not the LM engines...

Oh, and my post tone only reflects yours..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Show me in the photos where the engine hit the ground.
Whats more, I dont see any "brushed ground" due to the exhaust either.
Maybe the crane operator wasn't paying attention and dropped the LM a little too hard.

Try doing more than five seconds worth of analysis. Take the second image posted, put into image editor, adjust levels.

That's all it takes:




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Where's the marks on the ground from the impact??



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Where's the marks on the ground from the impact??


Presumably underneath the engine.

Where are the calculations I asked you to do to prove your case?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ah, well....then it was STILL WRONG!!!!!:


My debate was off topic and about a baseball, not the LM engines...


Because, IF you were still on about the baseball, and a pitcher's throw....then, your use of "F = MG" is WRONG!!!

The 'F' is the force of the throw.....the 'M' is the mass of the ball, in the pitcher's hand. BUT (and this is 'tres importante').....where you inserted 'G' is IRRELEVANT!!!

We are talking, still, about a horizontal trajectory. (Oh, and BTW...this does relate [tangentially...a pun] to the topic).


I see you have tried to cleverly dance away form the mistake, of using 'G', yet again. Says a lot.


So....still not clear on accelerations, in that formula?? Or, the fact that the SPECIFIC equation "F = MG" doesn't apply, except when used to determine the "weight" of a "mass" within the Earth's "g"ravitational field???

And, once that "weight", in the Earth's "g" field is known, then its "force" it may exert....UNACCELERATED in any other way (except, by the aforementioned GRAVITY of EARTH) is ..... well, back to what we know as, and call in English...."weight".

Clear yet?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The 'F' is the force of the throw.....the 'M' is the mass of the ball, in the pitcher's hand. BUT (and this is 'tres importante').....where you inserted 'G' is IRRELEVANT!!!

We are talking, still, about a horizontal trajectory. (Oh, and BTW...this does relate [tangentially...a pun] to the topic).


Wrong again whacky...
You really need to read before ranting..
We were discussing a VERTICAL pitch.....



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


sorry recheck your sources there bub, i pulled mine off the NASA site.. but meh..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why did Buzz Aldrin become a severe alcoholic after "returning", wandering the streets and mumbling?

Why did Michael Collins say the visual character of the moon changed at dawn or dusk. Were they there for 28 days? Gives new meaning to the phrase "hold your breath".

How could there be absolutely no delay in back and forth radio communications between the Apollo crew and mission control if radio waves only travel at 186,000 mph?

Why did the Apollo 11 crew give the Dutch prime minister a piece of petrified wood and say it was a moon rock? Didn't they have any real ones? Or was there petrified wood on the moon? Doesn't this match your criteria for labeling a source non-credible?

And what about those lost tapes from Apollo, the really clear ones? Isn't that like losing the Declaration of Independence? Whoops!
edit on 5-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: Additional info.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Why did Buzz Aldrin become a severe alcoholic after "returning", wandering the streets and mumbling?
I imagine it would be tough knowing that your greatest accomplishment was behind you.


Originally posted by grizzle2
Why did Michael Collins say the visual character of the moon changed at dawn or dusk. Were they there for 28 days? Gives new meaning to the phrase "hold your breath".
Orbiting the moon, they would have experiences many dawns and dusks.


Originally posted by grizzle2
How could there be absolutely no delay in back and forth radio communications between the Apollo crew and mission control if radio waves only travel at 186,000 mph?
Radio travels at 670,000,000 mph (or about 186,000 miles per second). So the maximum delay for transmissions from the moon would be about 1 second.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Why did the Apollo 11 crew give the Dutch prime minister a piece of petrified wood and say it was a moon rock?
They didn't.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why did Buzz Aldrin become a severe alcoholic after "returning", wandering the streets and mumbling?


'cos no-one had told him he'd never been to the moon, so his life lacked a focus to punch out.

Or you could read his book to find out


Why did Michael Collins say the visual character of the moon changed at dawn or dusk. Were they there for 28 days? Gives new meaning to the phrase "hold your breath".


Or alternatively as they orbited it they saw both sunrise and sunset.....


How could there be absolutely no delay in back and forth radio communications between the Apollo crew and mission control if radio waves only travel at 186,000 mph?


tough one - just as well there was a delay then or it'd be really hard to explain.....


Why did the Apollo 11 crew give the Dutch prime minister a piece of petrified wood and say it was a moon rock?


they didn't.

It was given by then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf, who accompanied the Apollo 11 astronauts on a visit to The Netherlands after the first moon landing. He said it came from the State Dept, not from NASA.



Didn't they have any real ones? Or was there petrified wood on the moon? Doesn't this match your criteria for labeling a source non-credible?


Dont you ahve any real facts?? 'cos none of these so-called ones are credible yet......



And what about those lost tapes from Apollo, the really clear ones? Isn't that like losing the Declaration of Independence? Whoops!


You mean like the "Fair copy" that was the one actually approved, since lost?
Or the estimated 200 (or maybe 500) broadsheets printed of which 24 are known extant?

AFAIK there was no shortage of paper that required the DOI to be turned into a palimpsest, as opposed to a shortage of tapes sufered by NASA.

What do you think there is that is "hidden" on the missing tapes?


edit on 5-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by backinblack
Where's the marks on the ground from the impact??


Presumably underneath the engine.

Where are the calculations I asked you to do to prove your case?


Presumably?
Presumably is not good enough.
How heavy was the LM? Are you telling us that astronauts could leave nicely etched footprints in the sand but the the edge of the engine bell or skirt could not? That dirt under the LM looks nice and fluffy with plenty of pebbles and small rocks. I see no striations markings from the exhaust nor a groove in the sand from the engine having hit it.

Chalk up another mystery to Apollo-Lawn, from the same people who gave you Penta-Lawn



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by grizzle2

Why did Buzz Aldrin become a severe alcoholic after "returning", wandering the streets and mumbling?
I imagine it would be tough knowing that your greatest accomplishment was behind you.



From what I recall, going into it, thats not how they saw it.
It was just a job.
Buzz's alcoholism is not proof of a hoax, but it is suspicious.
Guilt & depression usually leads to alcoholism.
I dont know how a "great" accomplishment would.
And where was Collins and Armstrong?
Where they there for Buzz?





Originally posted by grizzle2
Why did Michael Collins say the visual character of the moon changed at dawn or dusk. Were they there for 28 days? Gives new meaning to the phrase "hold your breath".
Orbiting the moon, they would have experiences many dawns and dusks.


How? Dawn or dusk relative to what exactly? In the CM?
And if they would look at the moon, its basically black and white.
No atmosphere remember.






Originally posted by grizzle2
How could there be absolutely no delay in back and forth radio communications between the Apollo crew and mission control if radio waves only travel at 186,000 mph?
Radio travels at 670,000,000 mph (or about 186,000 miles per second). So the maximum delay for transmissions from the moon would be about 1 second.



People usually mean the roundtrip communication delay, so two seconds.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Why did the Apollo 11 crew give the Dutch prime minister a piece of petrified wood and say it was a moon rock?


they didn't.

It was given by then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf, who accompanied the Apollo 11 astronauts on a visit to The Netherlands after the first moon landing. He said it came from the State Dept, not from NASA.



So the Astronauts where there.
Who says that it wasn't handed over by one of them?
But here is the crux of the problem.
These astronauts should have been able to look at the "rock" and say, thats not one of ours.

And all this still doesn't explain how a moon rock was given to the State Dept. and then to land in the hands of Mr. Middendorf. These rocks were supposed to be UBER valuable and locked away for research. Small samples given out as presents to various countries under controlled conditions.

The Netherlands and the US are best friends.
This is ATS, I think you all know how fast media can spin "bad news" into "hey no problem here" news.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Chalk up another mystery to Apollo-Lawn, from the same people who gave you Penta-Lawn

Oh so you're not just limited to making wild speculation about NASA astronauts, you also like to speculate about the dead.

Classy.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



We are talking, still, about a horizontal trajectory. (Oh, and BTW...this does relate [tangentially...a pun] to the topic).


Hey here's an interesting one in regards to horizontal trajectory and good old F=MA..
In many videos we see the astronauts pretty much skipping across the moon and stop starting..

Considering they are carrying over 100kgs with suit,backpack and camera etc,
how do they stop so easily ??

Wouldn't the momentum/force of all that mass make it difficult?
Ever tried running while carrying a heavy weight then try to stop quickly?

edit on 6-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So the Astronauts where there.
Who says that it wasn't handed over by one of them?
But here is the crux of the problem.
These astronauts should have been able to look at the "rock" and say, thats not one of ours.

And all this still doesn't explain how a moon rock was given to the State Dept. and then to land in the hands of Mr. Middendorf. These rocks were supposed to be UBER valuable and locked away for research. Small samples given out as presents to various countries under controlled conditions.

The Netherlands and the US are best friends.
This is ATS, I think you all know how fast media can spin "bad news" into "hey no problem here" news.


*yawn* We've circled back to this again. Rather than quote one of my own replies, here's one from jra:


I really wish people would look deeper into this, but HB's just jump on it without giving it much of a thought and think they have evidence of a hoax.

The petrified wood was NOT given to the Dutch Prime Minister by the Apollo 11 Astronauts or even by NASA themselves.

Firstly, It was a private gift from a US Ambassador to the former Dutch Prime Minister. I'd like to stress the former part. Willem Drees was no longer PM in 1969 when he was given this petrified wood.

Secondly, US ambassador gave the petrified rock to the former PM in 1969. NASA didn't give out the gift rocks to other Countries until after Apollo 17 in 1972.

Thirdly, the petrified wood was 98grams. The largest Apollo samples given to other Countries were 1.1grams and encased in clear plastic.

So looking at these facts, it's clear that there was no attempt by anyone to purposely pass this off as a Moon rock. To me it seems it was the museum that acquired some of Drees possessions that misidentified the rock and didn't bother to check to see if it really was a Moon rock or not.


That was back on page 211.

More recently, of course, we've had this, courtesy of facefirst:


That was on page 383.

edit on 6-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


How about you answer some of the many questions put to you, instead of arrogantly insulting your opponents who turn out to be right, then failing to educate yourself so you understand it.

Might be a fun exercise, you can actually participate in debate perhaps!



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 415  416  417    419  420  421 >>

log in

join