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: 441
377
<< 438  439  440    442  443  444 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Surely you have something a little more up to date than 46 years...


Pay attention, Black. FoosM's challenge was to specifically find a source prior to Apollo. Much, much more is known now.


Ahh, that challenge was from 4 months ago...
Pardon me for not remembering..




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Every craft (ISS,Shuttles) seem to go through the SAA so what's your point??


That's because very few craft are launched from the equator. What's your point?


My point is your table said zero radiation at 445klms..
We know they go through the SAA multiple times a day so how can it be zero ??
The ISS (and hence Shuttle missions to it) are in an orbit with an inclination of 52°, so they do intersect with the SAA.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



My point is your table said zero radiation at 445klms..
We know they go through the SAA multiple times a day so how can it be zero ??


The table shows the radiation dose at different altitudes at different orbital inclinations. As Nat pointed out, zero degrees is an equatorial orbit. The SAA does not extend downwards at that latitude. Most spacecraft tend to orbit with an inclination equal to the latitude of their launch site. The KSC is about 30 degrees north, so US spacecraft tend to have a 30 degree orbital inclination.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


But we know the ISS had some real issues going through the SAA..
Your table doesn't seem to show much radiation at all at 30 degrees..



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This is just so bloody pathetic...more noise, nonsense, distraction and deflection.


And, to:
reply to post by FoosM
 


DITTO. Distract, distract, distract....adding in a bit of Sybil, personality changes along the way as well...based on the # of
's, from post to post.


HERE:





UNDENIABLE photographic evidence that the Apollo missions LANDED, exactly where it has been historically recorded, and known, for over 40 years. (~39, in the case of the last missions, from 1972).

Record after record after record of irrefutable PROOF!

And, that is merely ONE video, posted as long ago as July, 2009 on YouTube...compiled just from the initial LROC images....not even enhanced, as yet. (I have posted THAT video before...and, again....people who DO NOT understand how video enhancements work, ignorantly criticize. They only make themselves appear foolish, as a result).



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Most spacecraft tend to orbit with an inclination equal to the latitude of their launch site. The KSC is about 30 degrees north, so US spacecraft tend to have a 30 degree orbital inclination.
The minimum inclination of a launch site is determined by the site's latitude. That's why KSC's minimum is around 28°. There's really no upper limit on the inclination due to orbital mechanics reasons (higher latitudes are very slightly more effeciant for 90° polar orbits). KSC's 60° maximum is based on range safety (anything higher would put the flight path over various highly-populated areas of the East Coast)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



This is just so bloody pathetic...more noise, nonsense, distraction and deflection.


What's pathetic is your useless rants..

And is that the HEAVILY ENHANCED pics of the moon again??

You know, the ones you'd laugh out of the UFO forum if someone tried to use them as proof ??


Ahh, not the enhanced one so all we see is a couple of pixels..
Again it would be laughed out of any other forum..

edit on 2-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Proof positive.....not reading posts, NOR watching videos. Shame.


And is that the HEAVILY ENHANCED pics of the moon again??


Yup.

Is evident, all throughout this thread.

Agenda?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

Proof positive.....not reading posts, NOR watching videos. Shame.

And is that the HEAVILY ENHANCED pics of the moon again??

Yup.
Is evident, all throughout this thread.
Agenda?


Actually I edited my post well before you posted again..

But really, you can't blame me for not reading all your post..

It's usually nothing but a rant and blah blah blah...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



This is just so bloody pathetic...more noise, nonsense, distraction and deflection.


What's pathetic is your useless rants..

And is that the HEAVILY ENHANCED pics of the moon again??

You know, the ones you'd laugh out of the UFO forum if someone tried to use them as proof ??


Ahh, not the enhanced one so all we see is a couple of pixels..
Again it would be laughed out of any other forum..

edit on 2-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



Speaking of enhancements.... wasn't it rather convenient for Lowry & Nafzger to be involved with the first wave of Apollo enhancements... for example... the real time TV signal flow for Apollo 16/17 went from Houston to Hollywood and then back to Houston... BEFORE it went to the network feed.

40 years later (2009)they are both involved again with the restoration/revision of the Apollo 11 network copies and 8mm films, kinescopes and polaroids Lowry Digital supposedly restored about 3 hours of A11 footage for about $230,000.

I don't want to get too carried away here. The ORIGINAL Apollo 11 telemetry tapes also contained the slow scan video feed. There was a very good reason to erase those tapes and it wasn't about saving money & recycling.

NASA destroyed their own history is a FACT. Apollogists will open their script to page 1969 and read the scripted apology again and again and again!~ I love to hear them whimper and sniffle with excuses. For this is clearly an act of premeditated gross negligence on the part of NASA. Every Apollo defender knows this in their heart.

I have looked at gigabytes of Apollo data and I understand how NASA LOOOOOOOOOOVES to document their own accomplishments... in pictures and reports and press releases. NASA should have examined those lost tapes in great DETAIL, issued multiple reports on them. This is how NASA normally operates. And I admire that aspect of NASA.


I think the Cigarette Smoking Man had something to do with it



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Speaking of enhancements.... wasn't it rather convenient for Lowry & Nafzger to be involved with the first wave of Apollo enhancements... for example... the real time TV signal flow for Apollo 16/17 went from Houston to Hollywood and then back to Houston... BEFORE it went to the network feed.


*Yawn* Here we go again:


As for the Apollo films being processed in "Hollywood," I believe your faulty memory is about this:

Two factors improved the quality of the television still more on the last Apollo missions. NASA's using the 210-foot dish stations of the Deep Space Network, which increased the signal strength by almost 8 dB, brought about the first improvement.

Image Transform, then a startup company in North Hollywood, brought about the other improvement. They demonstrated to NASA, using Apollo 15 footage, their new proprietary system for enhancing video. NASA had them bring their system online for Apollo 16. Now the converted video from all EVA's was shipped to California, enhanced, returned to Houston, and then distributed to the network pool, all in real time.

Russel and Company

The live video feed of the last two Apollo missions was processed by an outside contractor. (Wouldn't they do it all "in house" if they were up to no good?) As usual, we've been through all this before on this thread, starting here.

Page 412

Of course, your main objective was to put as much distance as possible from this post, as it not only demolishes the "radiation argument," but reminds everyone that Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White is nothing but a cheap hoaxer. FoosM, I believe it is now your turn to bring up the "Dutch Moon Rock Scandal."



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Okay, I skipped just a couple (hundred) pages, because at the place I was, no proper argument implying that the Apollo mission was a hoax was being made. It was amusing at first, but then it grew frustrating as evidence was blatantly being ignored and issues were being nitpicked. (The last hoax believers whose posts I read were those of ppk55, Exuberant1, FoosM, and etc.--those who have been here a while are obviously aware of these people.) Anyway, I did not know this issue existed still, and to be perfectly honest, I can't quite recall how I made it here, but I must ask:

Was any substantial evidence disproving the Apollo mission ever set forth that wasn't thoroughly disputed? As a lover of debate, I enjoy proper arguments and hate when reason is skewered as it was.

An issue for some HBs (as I believed some called them), is that they question why we fail to return to the moon after all this time. However, further food for thought would be why, after all these years, have conspiracy theorists been unable to put forth valid arguments that withstood scrutiny in the scientific (and world) community outside their conspiracy peers? Why is such a task left to be done through a series of (poor) experiments and analysis by some arbitrary and ill-equipped student--despite the fact that the reasoning in the analysis has already been discredited by multiple sources?

Also, I'm not sure of the current HBs, or if this topic is still even ON-topic after having skipped approximately 200 pages, but, based on my impression with former HBs, I have one thing to note:

YOU are the ones who are trying to disprove that this happened. NASA has already released a large array of evidence accepted by the world as proof of the Apollo mission. Third-party organizations have further evidence to support NASA's, so it's obviously not a hoax which could have been a sheer fabrication of NASA. Therefore, by merely asking for proof of the Apollo missions is just lazy, given that NASA and the world has done its job of providing an astronomical amount. It is not their place (or that of the believers) to prove the truth of the evidence, for that is being ridiculous and redundant, but the place of the HBs to provide evidence contrary to the notion that Apollo was real and from there, further debate can ensue as opposed to the shameless guerrilla tactics I witnessed earlier. (It may work in military terms, but as a debate tactic, it only comes off as cowardly and discrediting.) YOU are the ones taking a bold and challenging stance, therefore, the burden of proof should lie on your heads as opposed to ours (seeing as pro-Apollo evidence has been apparent and accepted for decades), and then the responsibility of defending our evidence in light of yours then lies with us. (See the give-and-take aspect of debate?)

Anyway, just one HUGE flaw in JW's videos is that he fails to emphasize in his "experiments" that, even if he DID somehow manage to sufficiently recreate the scenes on the moon (which, he failed in its entirety) that is by no means evidence that the Apollo mission was bogus, ESPECIALLY not in the 60s, where it's incomprehensible as to the enormity of the task of faking it. (Surprisingly, it's A LOT more work than simply recording the scene and yelling "CUT!")

Also, even a junior high student would realize that, in order to qualify as a strong experiment, AS MANY VARIABLES MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION AS POSSIBLE. Now, I know asking for all variables in any case to be removed is unreasonable, but, come on--anyone with common sense can see that, no, experiments disproving events that happened on the moon cannot be performed on earth and expect to have withstanding results (especially without suitable equipment). Maybe it can pass fair enough as a school assignment, which I believe earlier posters stated it began as, but as actual evidence--dear me, I hope no one thinks so. Essentially, believers are miraculously being asked, "Hey, since I can 'recreate' this and find small inconsistencies, why don't you prove that this wasn't done as opposed to the actual mission?" THIS, is not a valid argument, and THIS does not stand on par to scientific (or even normal) reasoning, lest believers have the equal opportunity to state, "Hey, why don't you prove that we didn't land on the moon?" Trust me, the latter would be a MUCH harder challenge, yet this is virtually what JW is implying with his experiments.
edit on 3-5-2011 by ruserious8D because: Grammer correction & small addition

edit on 3-5-2011 by ruserious8D because: Grammer correction



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 

Proof positive.....not reading posts, NOR watching videos. Shame.

And is that the HEAVILY ENHANCED pics of the moon again??

Yup.
Is evident, all throughout this thread.
Agenda?


Actually I edited my post well before you posted again..

But really, you can't blame me for not reading all your post..

It's usually nothing but a rant and blah blah blah...
Yes we can. If you're not looking at both sides of the argument, you can't claim to be unbiased.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Good for Phil, so now that Phil has shown you how easy it was to fake, I guess you know
can see that it was faked right
No, he showed how easy it could've been, if they had the resources JW claims they did. JW is claiming the actual plot was much more complicated. Needlessly so.


So, what was JW's response to this video?
I don't know. You're the expert on JW, why don't you look it up? You were the one who told me to go look up JW's videos on Russia and ham radio, and I provided rebuttals to said videos in the fashion you prefer. Ball's in your court to find Jarrah's responses.


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Fair enough, how we just have to wait for DJ to confirm that he is not Phil Plait....


Although I'm flattered you would think that I am a PhD in astrophysics, I have already said that I am not Phil Plaitt. Have you ever affirmed that you're not Jarrah White?
I don't think Jarrah is capable of being this passive-aggressive. He usually opens and closes with some sort of insult at his opposition, and tends to stick to what he thinks are the facts, instead of deflecting and distracting.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Frost never asked a follow up question regarding the claim that Bin Laden was dead.


As usual, you highlight everything but the most important points. All of a sudden you seem to have Jarrah's thinking on absolutely everything on tap.
Don't fall for it, he's trying to change the subject.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001 FoosM, I believe it is now your turn to bring up the "Dutch Moon Rock Scandal."


After then it will be YOUR turn to post the "mirror globe" photos?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
What I don't understand is: why is JW such a trusted source in and of himself? It's obvious to see his experiments defy the fundamentals of experiments and he has been discredited on multiple counts without retracting his statements. So in other words, he is not only incompetent, but he is purposely deceptive; it's ironic that such a man would be an icon to some on a site about "[denying] ignorance" when he clearly embraces it and spreads it like a virus.

Even if this was originally for a school project or even if it still IS, JW should realize how many people are being misguided by his assumed "air of expertise" and the supposed "experts" on the videos he has. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the capacity to take a man who imitates James Bond and backs his findings with faulty science seriously. Is this the man that some HBs take as so credible?

Also, was it ever accepted that Jenny Heller, the supposed expert on perspectives, is in fact a fine arts teacher? I found a small reference (I'm serious about small, essentially a footnote) to her which seems to support the email that HBs proclaimed as a possible fraud.

"...Jenny Heller, lecturer in the Eora Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Sydney, Australia." Aboriginal Studies is classified as fine arts, just in case some don't know.

Reference to Jenny Heller which supports the alleged email she sent

So, why is JW so much more credible than NASA when he cannot even be bothered to obtain a real expert? (No attack is intended on Jenny Heller, who seemed aware that the interview would only be utilized as a project and willingly admits her lack of expertise in the field she was interviewed about.)

Also, anything that HBs want to provide to me which contradicts my claim that Jenny Heller is not an expert should be from an outside source. Asking me to "see the video," as was done earlier in this thread, is about the equivalent of you asking for proof of NASA landing on the moon and me telling you to "see the video."
edit on 3-5-2011 by ruserious8D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001 FoosM, I believe it is now your turn to bring up the "Dutch Moon Rock Scandal."


After then it will be YOUR turn to post the "mirror globe" photos?


I don't see what HBs find so humorous. The amount of scientific data supporting that Apollo 11 was a manned mission to the moon is baffling, yet a majority of the conspiracy theories are either ludicrous speculation or exaggeration of supposed incongruities, most of which only seem inconsistent with the "official story" because of a lack of understanding on the HBs' part.

All I hear from either unbiased or open-minded parties is, and this is interpreted from what I've heard of JW, "Well, he brings up some good points." Hardly the norm to say about such an "esteemed" scholar.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ruserious8D

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001 FoosM, I believe it is now your turn to bring up the "Dutch Moon Rock Scandal."


After then it will be YOUR turn to post the "mirror globe" photos?


I don't see what HBs find so humorous. The amount of scientific data supporting that Apollo 11 was a manned mission to the moon is baffling,


Yes its baffling how so much scientific evidence is missing and tainted.
I mean seriously, what data are you talking about? We have poked so many holes into the story
you can now call it a myth.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ruserious8D
What I don't understand is: why is JW such a trusted source in and of himself? It's obvious to see his experiments defy the fundamentals of experiments and he has been discredited on multiple counts without retracting his statements. So in other words, he is not only incompetent, but he is purposely deceptive; it's ironic that such a man would be an icon to some on a site about "[denying] ignorance" when he clearly embraces it and spreads it like a virus.

Even if this was originally for a school project or even if it still IS, JW should realize how many people are being misguided by his assumed "air of expertise" and the supposed "experts" on the videos he has. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the capacity to take a man who imitates James Bond and backs his findings with faulty science seriously. Is this the man that some HBs take as so credible?

Also, was it ever accepted that Jenny Heller, the supposed expert on perspectives, is in fact a fine arts teacher? I found a small reference (I'm serious about small, essentially a footnote) to her which seems to support the email that HBs proclaimed as a possible fraud.


JW is a historian on Apollo. He has read and studied more about Apollo than the average person. That makes him an expert.

Just because his studies on Apollo has made him conclude the program was false,
doesn't make him any less of an expert. Just like Aron Ranen who made a documentary on the subject and also concluded the missions were faked.

And you bringing up Jenny Heller as an issue makes me now believe you are nothing but a manipulative agent of disinformation. JW explains very clearly in his video who she was.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 438  439  440    442  443  444 >>

log in

join