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: 43
377
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
BTW, thanks to ka9q at Apollo Hoax, we now have a reasonable answer to Gene Cernan's statement that not shutting off the LM's engines prior to touchdown may have caused a crater deep enough to damage the LM.

It seems that when they redesigned the LM for the J-series missions, one of the changes was to lenghten the descent engine nozzle extension to allow for more thrust given that the later missions were much heavier.



J-SERIES MODIFICATIONS
Descent Stage: Increased supplies of oxygen and water; extended electrical life. Quad 1 re-arranged to permit stowage of folded Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). Quad 4 - new 50 kg water tank, waste container and additional oxygen pressure tank and gaseous oxygen module replaces Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). A re-designed MESA is fitted outside Quad 4, includes tool pallet, sample containers, batteries for personnel life support systems, and cosmic ray detector. Four descent engine propellant tanks lengthened by 8.6 cm providing 521.5 kg extra fuel and oxidizer. Descent engine burned for longer period; combustion chamber modified to reduce erosion; expansion skirt modified.


So with a hard landing that could have over-compressed the landing gear, and uneven ground, along with an extended shroud, the shroud could have come close to the surface, causing an explosion.

Cernan's response is still, IMO, well-deserved exaggeration, but this new information makes it much more understandable.

Thanks again to my "boys" at Apollo Hoax.


So... which is it, did they shut the engine off 3 meters off the ground or did they shut the engine off after the contact light went off?




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM





Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM

I take it from the mess you posted you have no answers to anybody's questions.

But I'd really like to know when Werner von Braun was found to be a war criminal.

No you dont, otherwise you would go investigate for yourself, unless you dont believe that targeting and killing people with V2 rockets would be considered a war crime.



That's what you asked first.
Then when I responded, you asked again and decided to add "targeting" to your question.

Thats alright though, I long expected dirty tactics from your side.

BAM!


You seem to be confused. The statement above:


No you dont, otherwise you would go investigate for yourself, unless you dont believe that targeting and killing people with V2 rockets would be considered a war crime.

Is yours, not mine. You used the term "targeting" first.

Here is a link to the quote that YOU made:

Link

It is in the very first sentence.

Are you lying, or just confused beyond belief?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by FoosM
 


I take it from the mess you posted you have no answers to anybody's questions.

But I'd really like to know when Werner von Braun was found to be a war criminal.


No you dont, otherwise you would go investigate for yourself, unless you dont believe that targeting and killing people with V2 rockets would be considered a war crime. Maybe you dont, maybe you are numb to it all since the good ol' USA is doing the same in the middle east with their predators and other nasty bombs and rockets. So I suppose you are thinking, 'if Ahmeri-k-k-a kan do it den so kan duh Nazees". And I guess using forced/slave labor and working them to their death is not a crime either. Nahh not at all. The clothes and shoes that you wear were probably also made by slaves too and you got no problem showing of those brands like a walking billboard.

It appears anybody connected to the heralded Apollo program has been washed clean of their sins and crimes. They were all angels. It seems like none of their ideologies that they had continued on, and infected others in their new positions within NASA. This thread is full of hypocrites.

Furthermore, repeating the mantra that I have not answered your questions ain't fooling anybody. A useless ploy. That goes for all you attention seekers asking for me to answer silly questions you can look up answers for yourself. If you lack the imagination or the research skills to do the work yourself, so sad too bad.
But I know you are not here to hear alternative opinions, your here to distract, destroy and deny access to the dirty truths of the Apollo program.
But your attempts are failing and you are exposing your bias and programmed minds to the masses.

The truth about what Apollo was, a program that merely masked the real space program, is coming out. And its not about UFOs (distraction) it was and is about weaponizing space and spying on your enemies... which includes citizens. Yeah, all you GPS/GPRS carrying citizens have become targets. The entire GPS program is wholly owned and run by the military.






Just quoting his post in case he decides to do a little stealth editing.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This is music to my ears.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
BTW, thanks to ka9q at Apollo Hoax, we now have a reasonable answer to Gene Cernan's statement that not shutting off the LM's engines prior to touchdown may have caused a crater deep enough to damage the LM.

It seems that when they redesigned the LM for the J-series missions, one of the changes was to lenghten the descent engine nozzle extension to allow for more thrust given that the later missions were much heavier.



J-SERIES MODIFICATIONS
Descent Stage: Increased supplies of oxygen and water; extended electrical life. Quad 1 re-arranged to permit stowage of folded Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). Quad 4 - new 50 kg water tank, waste container and additional oxygen pressure tank and gaseous oxygen module replaces Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). A re-designed MESA is fitted outside Quad 4, includes tool pallet, sample containers, batteries for personnel life support systems, and cosmic ray detector. Four descent engine propellant tanks lengthened by 8.6 cm providing 521.5 kg extra fuel and oxidizer. Descent engine burned for longer period; combustion chamber modified to reduce erosion; expansion skirt modified.


So with a hard landing that could have over-compressed the landing gear, and uneven ground, along with an extended shroud, the shroud could have come close to the surface, causing an explosion.

Cernan's response is still, IMO, well-deserved exaggeration, but this new information makes it much more understandable.

Thanks again to my "boys" at Apollo Hoax.


So... which is it, did they shut the engine off 3 meters off the ground or did they shut the engine off after the contact light went off?


First, which mission are you talking about?

Second, why are you talking about "3 meters"?

Third, when did the contact light go "off"?

Nothing about your question makes sense.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Please Stay On Topic

The subject of this discussion is a series of videos on YouTube.

Stay ON TOPIC or the thread will be shut down.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001

You still haven't explained the logistics of faking the launch, making the craft vanish from orbit, synching all the SFX in real time, etc. I just spent two days doing a one minute long traffic safety spot. I shudder to think of how complicated it must have been to co-ordinate 178 consecutive hours of live television with a cast and crew that is in the dark that it isn't real.


Again, use your imagination.
Who says it was live?

God this is too easy people.



Yea it sure is when you answer a question with "use your imagination"?

It does make it easy when you don't have to bother with that messy "research".

Let's try again. How about some specifics? And shouting DISNEY!, or posting clips from Star Wars don't count.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, of course, the old 'Transmit 178 Hours Of Canned Programming At The Height Of The Vietnam War And Hope That Nothing Important Happens Trick." They fall for it every time....



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, of course, the old 'Transmit 178 Hours Of Canned Programming At The Height Of The Vietnam War And Hope That Nothing Important Happens Trick." They fall for it every time....


First of all, where did you get that figure from?
Second, whats so difficult about it?
Third, good point about Vietnam, because Apollo was used as moral booster & diversion
Fourth, I answered your question and you cant deny it. You cant debunk it.
In other words, complaining about doesnt change the fact that it was filmed in studio.

Its just like Jarrah's last video.

He clearly shows the flag moving and all anyone can say is, "I didnt see it move"
Well you didn't look. Take your hands from in front your eyes. Its like theres a psychic block of the mind to see the truth.



Speaking of which:
Here is new one



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



First of all, where did you get that figure from?
Second, whats so difficult about it?
Third, good point about Vietnam, because Apollo was used as moral booster & diversion
Fourth, I answered your question and you cant deny it. You cant debunk it.
In other words, complaining about doesnt change the fact that it was filmed in studio.


1) The missions lasted a week. That's 178 hours of non-stop medical telemetry they would have to pre-record. There was also constant radio chatter, all of which has been recorded and transcribed.

2) All of this dialog would have to be written in advance so that very precise cues can be kept. After all, there were doctors expecting the heart rate to jump when the LOI burn "special effect" kicked in. There were also lengthy television transmissions demonstrating the effects of weightlessness on a small, confined space. These transmissions lasted several minutes and could only be faked by building a set on an airplane and performing a hyperbolic dive. No airplane could maintain free fall for that long.

3) Do you resent the fact the Apollo made people feel good during one of America's darkest and most divisive periods?

3) No, you did not. You keep saying things like "it's easy" or "use your imagination." You have yet to explain how it was possible to combine all the different optical and practical effects necessary for every single moment into a single frame without the repeated duplication involved in the processing washing things out. Why are there no "hot spots" in the alleged rear-projection segments? Why are there no moire patterns at the edges of the various mattes? I could go on but you have never specifically said HOW it could have been filmed in a studio. You just keep repeating that it was.

It's time for you to use your imagination. Take five minutes of footage, prepare a storyboard and show, in detail, how each effect can be done. Remember, if you use multiple light sources you have to apply a technique which removes secondary shadows. If you use a single light source, you must remove the penumbra. Dust must settle instantly, so it must be filmed in a vacuum chamber or the dust clouds matted out... etc, etc. Then, draw up a shooting schedule.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Given that everything has been pretty much covered, may I offer a suggestion to those that haven't actually seen what the Apollo journals are like. TAKE A LOOK - links below!

A lot of folks - obviously including our intrepid apollo deniers! - haven't actually bothered to look at them. Yet if you are interested in Apollo, they are an absolute WEALTH of information. It may take a while to get up to speed with all the terminology but they are copiously annotated, and there are many links to related videos, films and imagery. It's ALL documented in excruciating detail, including a VERY useful timeline..

But there's another reason to take a look - they can be quite an exciting read. If, like me, you lived through this period, you can bring back the goosebumps...

Anyway, to be specific, here's a link to the Apollo 17 journal in totality:
Full Apollo 17 Journal

Here's a direct link to the section covering the descent and landing:
Apollo 17 LM Descent and Landing

And here's a (shortened) quote from that section, that specifically address the question about when the engine was *actually* shutdown. It's near the bottom of the previous link, and gives a good idea of what to expect from the Journals. The bits in brackets are annotations by NASA to help explain what is going on.)


...
113:01:15 Schmitt: Moving forward a little. 90 feet. Little forward velocity... Very little dust, 40 feet, going down at 3.

(Gene wants about 5 feet per second down for the final phase; 2 feet per second would burn too much fuel and oxidizer. They will land with about 1225 pounds of fuel remaining, enough for about 117 seconds of hovering. For comparison, Neil Armstrong landed with only 50 seconds of fuel/oxidizer remaining, primarily because at pitchover he discovered he was coming down into West Crater and had to take over manual control quite early and fly beyond to a good landing spot...)

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)

...(Lengthy annotation snipped)...

113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) Stop, push. Engine stop; Engine Arm; Proceed; Command Override, Off; Mode Control, Att(itude) Hold; PGNS, Auto.

113:02:11 Cernan: Okay, Houston. The Challenger has landed!

...


Ok, so lets' look at what was said. Note the bolded line at 113:01:43.
Schmitt, at the end, says "10 feet", then repeats it. 10 feet is near enough to 2 metres....

Then at 113:01:58 Schmitt says "Contact". Then there is a pause.

Clearly, the LM was moving downwards during all this time.

Then 5 seconds later, at 113:02:03 Schmitt reads out his checklist "Stop, push. Engine stop".

It's not particularly clear from the typed transcript whether the engine is shut down during the pause, or even as late as Schmitt reading out his checklist, but even so, very obviously the LM MUST have been some distance below the 2 metre claim. Indeed, if you watch the video and listen to the audio (linked below), it is almost certain that engine shutdown occurred as Schmitt calls "Contact".

It's also worth noting how excited Cernan was - shortly after touchdown he boasts to Schmitt:


113:02:23 Cernan: ...Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?


Read the transcript again - he's so excited that he doesn't realise that Schmitt NEVER said 'shut down'. He probably means Schmitt's call of "Contact", but that would make it way, way below 2 metres.

So, above 2 metres? Not a chance (and it would have survived that anyway). Cernan is an excitable sort of guy - go watch his interviews in "The Shadow of the Moon"! Stories always get more exciting as the years go by...

Now, really - a denier thinks this is a smoking gun??
The words 'grasping at straws' comes to mind... And it is notable that the same denier is trying desperately to avoid talking about earlier errors.

It's the usual story.


Oh, here's the Quicktime video if you want:
history.nasa.gov...



PS - the full transcript also gives quite an interesting insight into the personalities of Schmitt and Cernan, as the LM descended from orbit. Cernan was bit gung-ho - quite the test pilot... You can hear Schmitt telling him he is dropping faster than the recommended rates, but Cernan carries on, and at one stage tells Schmitt that he doesn't need the numbers..! There are annotations in the full transcript on Cernan's test pilot experience, explaining why he was so confident... If I was Schmitt, I would have been a little nervous too..



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Thanks for posting the new video.

Jarrah White destroyed that believer's attempt at making straw-men arguments.

It is kind of sad to see all the obvious straw-men arguments put forth by the believers.

They so desperately want Apollo to be real that they resort to lying to others in order to help further reinforce their own self-deceit. It is one of the most annoying methods of reinforcing one's beliefs on the internet today.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Thanks for posting the new video.

Jarrah White destroyed that believer's attempt at making straw-men arguments.

It is kind of sad to see all the obvious straw-men arguments put forth by the believers.

They so desperately want Apollo to be real that they resort to lying to others in order to help further reinforce their own self-deceit. It is one of the most annoying methods of reinforcing one's beliefs on the internet today.


And thankyou, Exuberant1, for another completely content-free post.

When you want to actually participate in a debate, can you let us know? Because posting falsified quotes like your Frank Byrne effort, doesn't really count for debate. That is DECEIT.

I'll be doing a summary of your contributions to this thread later. Are you looking forward to that? I certainly am.


Anyway, to be fair, I ask again, Exuberant1 - What, in your opinion, is the BEST evidence that Jarrah White has shown you?

Please be SPECIFIC, and be prepared to debate it.

If you will not do that, then your motives will be even clearer than they already are.


Keep smiling!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Speaking of which:
Here is new one



Once again Foos tries to change the subject when he gets nailed.

Targeting, Foos, targeting.

Remember?

We can get back to the Hams later....



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 




They so desperately want Apollo to be real that they resort to lying to others in order to help further reinforce their own self-deceit. It is one of the most annoying methods of reinforcing one's beliefs on the internet today.



An unbelievable quote coming from someone willing to use a highly questionable quote because it came in a video. You took it hook, line and sinker. Never questioned where it really came from.

No wonder you lap up these video like a kitten and so much milk, you just don't want to have to think.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I was watching the documentary " In the Shadow of the moon" last night. Loved it btw, I watched it cause someone here mentioned it... Thnks.

anyway, on this doc. there is a contigency statement made by Nixon in case the apollo 11 mission failed. this is very substancial, it is another big proof that the apollo missions were real. why would the president of the U.S pre-record a statement in case of a mission failure if it was all being made in a studio??

Newspaper article

Nixon prepared for apollo disaster

The speech wrote by William Safire

There was a small clip of Nixon reading the speech on the documentary, but I couldnt find it anywhere else.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd
BTW, thanks to ka9q at Apollo Hoax, we now have a reasonable answer to Gene Cernan's statement that not shutting off the LM's engines prior to touchdown may have caused a crater deep enough to damage the LM.

It seems that when they redesigned the LM for the J-series missions, one of the changes was to lenghten the descent engine nozzle extension to allow for more thrust given that the later missions were much heavier.



J-SERIES MODIFICATIONS
Descent Stage: Increased supplies of oxygen and water; extended electrical life. Quad 1 re-arranged to permit stowage of folded Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). Quad 4 - new 50 kg water tank, waste container and additional oxygen pressure tank and gaseous oxygen module replaces Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). A re-designed MESA is fitted outside Quad 4, includes tool pallet, sample containers, batteries for personnel life support systems, and cosmic ray detector. Four descent engine propellant tanks lengthened by 8.6 cm providing 521.5 kg extra fuel and oxidizer. Descent engine burned for longer period; combustion chamber modified to reduce erosion; expansion skirt modified.


So with a hard landing that could have over-compressed the landing gear, and uneven ground, along with an extended shroud, the shroud could have come close to the surface, causing an explosion.

Cernan's response is still, IMO, well-deserved exaggeration, but this new information makes it much more understandable.

Thanks again to my "boys" at Apollo Hoax.


So... which is it, did they shut the engine off 3 meters off the ground or did they shut the engine off after the contact light went off?


First, which mission are you talking about?

Second, why are you talking about "3 meters"?

Third, when did the contact light go "off"?

Nothing about your question makes sense.


Look Tom, obviously your in a little way over your head.
You dont know what Im talking about? Then what are you talking about?
Why are you making posts and cant follow up on questions on it? Especially when your trying to respond to my earlier post. Oh I get it, you dont even understand what your posting. All your doing is going to other forums looking for help and pasting the info here.

This is a sad as your whole attempt to hide the fact that you were moving the goal posts of your von Braun questions. And using that as a way not to acknowledge the evidence I presented. Your so busted Lawrence Taylor is jealous.


And who were those lazy bums looking for that Frank Byrne quote where he said the tracking of Apollo could have been simulated? I mean, I gave you the doggone documentary where it came from. And you dont even bother watching it? We make things way to easy for you!

I guess I got to do it again.



60 min documentary film begins as an attempt to prove Apollo 11 was real and ends up revealing the Nazi's role in NASA. Produced by Aron Ranen and Benjamin Britton... Did We Go? (2000 - 60min) Aron Ranen

for the lazy 3:25


God is Glen a nut job.

Wait... wait a minute... did somebody just spill the beans and pointed out that Frank Byrne died in 2000 after his interview?



October 22, 2000
FRANCIS "FRANK" BYRNE, 66, 120 Chipola Road, Cocoa Beach, died Friday, Oct. 20. Mr. Smith was director of electronic engineering at the Kennedy Space Center. He was a member of Indian River Amateur Radio Club. He was Lutheran. He was an Army veteran. Survivors...


Hmmm.... very interesting. Did he reveal too much?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
I was watching the documentary "In the Shadow of the moon" last night. Loved it btw, I watched it cause someone here mentioned it... Thnks.

That woulda been me - no problemo


I thought it was pretty cool too, and it brought the astronauts to 'life'. I decided I *really* like Mike Collins - he's got a great attitude! A very interesting musical score too.


anyway, on this doc. there is a contigency statement made by Nixon in case the apollo 11 mission failed. this is very substancial, it is another big proof that the apollo missions were real. why would the president of the U.S pre-record a statement in case of a mission failure if it was all being made in a studio??

That's a good point, but of course the deniers will say that this was just all part of the ruse, another little touch to ensure that the story would be believed.

The same deniers have often argued that the USA would never risk such missions, due to the chance of failure and the embarrassment that would entail. They sorta forget about Apollo 1 (3 lives lost, and it gave NASA a *huge* wake-up call to get their act together). They also sorta forget about the Shuttle disasters - did that stop the Shuttle program? And anyone who was alive and sentient during the late sixties, there was a reals sense of adventure, pioneering spirit, achievement, and when you add a cold-war PR victory and a distraction to Vietnam.. The timing was absolutely right, and to be rather frank and crude - so what if we lost a few test pilots?

Again, I would invite anyone, deniers included, to watch this DVD. It is REALLY interesting, and like I said, there are a few things that the deniers might be able to twist into their little webs...

And at least watching that DVD is *enjoyable*, unlike the flawed garbage of Jarrah White - who has thoroughly proved he is master of nothing but ad hominem.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
anyway, on this doc. there is a contigency statement made by Nixon in case the apollo 11 mission failed.


Why the hell did this ever get out ? If the moon landings really were true ... this wouldn't have seen the light of day.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by DJW001

1) The missions lasted a week. That's 178 hours of non-stop medical telemetry they would have to pre-record. There was also constant radio chatter, all of which has been recorded and transcribed.
----
I still dont see how or why this was so difficult.
They were running simulations,
and could have easily taken medical telemetry from there, or radio chatter, or whatever was needed.


2) All of this dialog would have to be written in advance so that very precise cues can be kept. After all, there were doctors expecting the heart rate to jump when the LOI burn "special effect" kicked in. There were also lengthy television transmissions demonstrating the effects of weightlessness on a small, confined space. These transmissions lasted several minutes and could only be faked by building a set on an airplane and performing a hyperbolic dive. No airplane could maintain free fall for that long.
----
Sure written in advance. Their dialogue sounded like a Disney script.Why is that so hard? Or dont you watch TV series and movies? Dont you read books? You also have what the call in the entertainment business ad libbing.



In action, the quick-witted invention of dialogue to cover a performer's memory lapse would be described as an ad-lib. Or, a director might encourage performers to ad-lib in a particular show. The term ad-lib usually refers to the interpolation of unscripted material in an otherwise scripted performance. When the entire performance is predicated on spontaneous creation, the process is usually called improvisation, such as in the show Whose Line Is It Anyway?
Live performers such as television talk-show hosts (e.g., Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc.) sometimes enhance their reputation for wit by the delivery of material that sounds ad-libbed but is actually scripted, and may employ ad-lib writers to prepare such material. Some actors are also known for their ability or tendency to ad-lib, such as Peter Falk (of the series Columbo), who would ad-lib such mannerisms as absent-mindedness while in character.


Weightlessness? LEO perhaps?
Why would they need to be on their way to the moon?
They were probably busy spying on Russia during their trip.
Project Mole.

3) Do you resent the fact the Apollo made people feel good during one of America's darkest and most divisive periods?
-----
They shouldnt have been feeling good, they should have been doing everything possible to end the War. You think the Vietnamese gave a crap about Apollo?

3) No, you did not. You keep saying things like "it's easy" or "use your imagination." You have yet to explain how it was possible to combine all the different optical and practical effects necessary for every single moment into a single frame without the repeated duplication involved in the processing washing things out. Why are there no "hot spots" in the alleged rear-projection segments? Why are there no moire patterns at the edges of the various mattes? I could go on but you have never specifically said HOW it could have been filmed in a studio. You just keep repeating that it was.

It's time for you to use your imagination. Take five minutes of footage, prepare a storyboard and show, in detail, how each effect can be done. Remember, if you use multiple light sources you have to apply a technique which removes secondary shadows. If you use a single light source, you must remove the penumbra. Dust must settle instantly, so it must be filmed in a vacuum chamber or the dust clouds matted out... etc, etc. Then, draw up a shooting schedule.
------
Give me NASA's Apollo budget Ill do it no problem.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join