Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


Foos... mate... come on. You do yourself no favours by going against the grain on the topic of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
The film-makler deliberately included all the Apollo hoax theories in his mockumentary.

So just because you or I might believe that the OS is not 100% accurate doesn't mean we should insist this mockumentary is real just because it includes some classic conspiracy ideas.

This is what the director intended... play it close enough to the reality of conspiracy theories to be accepted as the genuine article.

Foos... I hate to say it but you fell for it hook , line and sinker. Time for you to admit this film is what it is... a clever MOCK-umentary. Yes it does echo genuine valid conspiracy theories... but if you are to explore them do not use this film as proof... you'll fail every time.

You should follow Jarrah's lead and do more research, admit to your errors, and focus on the persuavive points about anomolies in the OS story.

I still find it odd that astronauts describe clouds of dust on landing, sometimes so much dust it obliterates the view... yet no dust on the lander feet. I think this is because the photos were faked on Earth, of this I am virtually 100% sure... the photos are too perfect.
I am still happily on the fence when it comes to wether man did or didn't land on the moon. I am awaiting verifiable independant evidence of the Lunar Module sitting on the moon (please don't post blurry images and say that proves it... it doesn't.) before I believe.

And I think Jarrah's 8 hours on Moon Rocks must include some interesting information that will back up his theory that we didn't land man on the moon.

PS: Has NASA ever given a full explanation as to why they lack the technology to put man back on the moon?

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by FoosM

 

PS: Has NASA ever given a full explanation as to why they lack the technology to put man back on the moon?

I don't see why they have to. What needs to be explained is why the Executive Branch isn't funding another NASA moon effort. One can probably assume it's because the Space Shuttle, which has been NASA's focus for--what, thirty years?--has consumed the bulk of their budget and efforts.

reply to post by 000063

I don't see why they have to.

You don't see why NASA should explain to 50% of the American people who doubt the OS story why they haven't got the technology now to do what they did numerous times 30 years ago?
I would have thought NASA owed that much to its people, to silence the whisperers and doubters and Jarrahs.

reply to post by manmental


BULL!!!

...50% of the American people who doubt the OS story ....

What rubbish!!

And, your repeated false claim that there isn't the technology doesn't make it true, just because you keep repeating it.

You attempts at twisting facts is sadly evident....

reply to post by manmental

PS: Has NASA ever given a full explanation as to why they lack the technology to put man back on the moon?

NASA does not " lack the technology " to go to the moon - it lacks the hardware

and most critically - FUNDING , who is going to pay for it any why ???????????

any american manned lunar operation has to far exceed the scope of apollo to be viable

and that needs a far bigger program than the entire space program so far

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by manmental

 

BULL!!!

...50% of the American people who doubt the OS story ....

What rubbish!!
And, your repeated false claim that there isn't the technology doesn't make it true, just because you keep repeating it.
You attempts at twisting facts is sadly evident....

Can you prove it's rubbish Weed?
Just you repeating it does not make it true.

reply to post by weedwhacker

What rubbish!! And, your repeated false claim that there isn't the technology doesn't make it true, just because you keep repeating it. You attempts at twisting facts is sadly evident....

Sorry Weed, I know how you adore NASA and believe everything they say without questioning.

I'll admit I may have got that percentage wrong. How about this one instead:

Apollo 11 hoax: one in four people do not believe in moon landing

Seems us Brits aren't as easily blinkered by the OS.

I repeated something twice... that is that NASA doesn't have the technology to get back to the moon. Or hardware... isn't that the same-ish?

You however repeat NASA's mantra over and over again ad nauseum... so I say to you sir that just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true.

Independant proof of the lunar module on the lunar surface please.

Weed.. do it think it possible or feasible that NASA may have recreated some of the lunar photos on the Earth?

reply to post by manmental


I wrote, in my post, that you LIED....and in response, you post an article from the Telegraph that says it is, now...the BRITS who think Apollo was a "hoax"...and, not the "50% of Americans" that you claimed, but 25% of Brits....and, I am sorry, but that ignorance, shown in the UK poll, does NOT speak well for the state of the educational system over there, in this area.

"Buzz" Lightyear was the answer given as the first person to step foot on the Moon?? Doesn't that strike you as either:

Incredibly ill-informed,and just plain stupid, or;

A JOKE answer??


I can't help it if a certain percentage of numbskulls exist in the world....much of this is from those equally ignorant people like David Percy (in the UK) combined with the likes of Bart Sibrel, going back to Ralph Rene' and Bill Kaysing. Then, of course, the rise of the Internet, and YouTube, and yet another crop of incredibly stupid people like "WhiteJarrah", "GreenMagoos" ans "Awe130", to name only three.


Furthermore, for you to repeat the FALSE assertion that NASA "doesn't have the technology" only continues to broadcast to everyone who hears/reads it that YOU are ignorant of which you (attempt) to speak.

Using THAT *logic* --- how does it sound if I say:

"After this next July, when the final Space Shuttle mission is completed, NASA will no longer have the technology to fly a re-usable space plane to low Earth orbit and return. Since, of course, they have nothing capable of doing that, right now. So, obviously they don't have the technology."

See how stupid that is? It is the exact claim YOU are trying to make, a similar analogy.


Let's go further....say an airplane manufacturer decided (for whatever reason) that a "Flying Boat", like those that were commonplace in the 1930s and 40s, would be a good idea to design and market.

Would they use the designs from the 1930s and 40s?? The Boeing 347? (AKA the "Yankee Clipper" of fame). Or, Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose"??

OR...would they use their accumulated KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE and design from the ground up (so to speak)?

Use your common sense....stop being so ridiculous, it's becoming embarrassing for you, too....

reply to post by manmental

Weed.. do it think it possible or feasible that NASA may have recreated some of the lunar photos on the Earth?

In 1969 - 1972??

NO.

You apparently do not realize the large trail of evidence to corroborate the film magazines, the sequence of the photos, everything is laid out logically, and documented up the wazoo....hundreds of people involved, task just with record-keeping, and in multiple offices and sections of those responsible for cataloging everything...


So, your question (veiled assertion) is moot, and absurd from the outset. A non-starter.....

reply to post by manmental

Independant proof of the lunar module on the lunar surface please.

Ahhhhh....THIS old chestnut, again?? Just because the camera aboard the LCROSS and LRO was launched by NASA, it is somehow *suspect*???

The goal posts, they are on wheels, for you conspiracy nuts.....

Hey!! Here's a thought!!

There are countless individuals out there who are very, very adept with Photoshop...and similar image manipulation programs. There are very intelligent and skilled people working in CGI technologies...all or any of those could tell, wouldn't you say, with their knowledge when a photo has been altered, using any sort of technology, such as image manipulation???


Odd....no one...NOT ONE person has ever looked at the LROC images, and announced they'd found a "smoking gun" of *proof* of manipulation or fakery. None.

Why is that, do you suppose?

reply to post by weedwhacker


hi Mr.Angry...

I corrected my error, like Jarrah does and you still get very angry... like you do with Jarrah..

My initial question... since lost in your rhetoric was... 'has NASA ever given an explanation why it hasn't got the technology to get back to the moon'...

I was just wondering what NASA's... not yours... ex-planation was. I was hoping for a link not another 'I love NASA' rant from your good self.

When did I lie again? You like saying people lie don't you? You must be an excellent individual to be so sure of people's motives. I bow down to your higher knowledge.

The Buzz Lightyear answer... irrelevant.

Are you saying Americans aren't dumb in polls?

The fact that A LOT (believe it mister) of people don't believe the OS by NASA doesn't seem to sink in with your good self.

We can't all be as clever as you Weed who knows all.

Once again I say just because YOU keep repeating NASA beliefs doesn't make them true.

Bless you.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Ahhhhh....THIS old chestnut, again?? Just because the camera aboard the LCROSS and LRO was launched by NASA, it is somehow *suspect*???

Not just that... the photo quality is terrible... and therefore could easily be manipulated or mis-interpreted.

Why can't we get close up photos of the lunar surface? satellites have the capability and I'm sure we have the technology to put satellites around the moon... heck I bet they've already done that... haven't they?

Show me the hi-res photos. Then I will buy you a drink of mead.

reply to post by backinblack


please read my post on this page - and then tell me what evidence you would accept

in short - the technology needed is IMHO

liquid fuel rocket motors - capable of lifting a payloat beyond earths gravity well -

flight vehicle life support systems to sustain a crew in micro gravity / near vaccum -

eva life support systems permit surface operations in low gravity / near vaccum

liquid fuel rocket engines capable of VTOL operation

communications suites capable of earth to moon comms

anything i missed - and any evidence we dont possess all these technologies

PS - before replying - please do not confuse hardware existance - or scale with technology

reply to post by manmental


[quote]Show me the hi-res photos. Then I will buy you a drink of mead.

if you want hi-res pics - lets go right back to basics - and start eith the ALSJ - and your reasons for rejecting it as evidence

reply to post by manmental

Actually the resolution from LROC is very good.

Let's take the first image from the Apollo 14 landing site as an example. At first look there isn't much to see. There's a reason for that; there isn't much to see. The lander is barely visible and it's the size of a pickup truck. What else is there? Some instruments and a flagpole (no rover). Other than that there's (yes) rocks and craters.

But what is easy to not get is the scale of what we're looking at. The resolution of the Apollo 14 image is about 1 meter per pixel, so the LM occupies 3, maybe 4 pixels. Tiny right? Well yes. But is that the best we can do? Pretty much. The LRO is now in a lower orbit and the resolution is even better but there still isn't going to be a whole lot to see. Or is there?
Here is the Apollo 14 landing site. I know, we've seen it. But I want you to compare it to something.


Unfortunately, what I want you to compare it to is copyrighted so I can't embed it but here is the link. Maybe open it in a separate tab.

This is Rio De Janeiro as imaged from the Ikonos satellite. Lots of stuff. It is at a resolution of .8 meters per pixel. Each pixel is about 1 foot smaller (30%) than it is in the Apollo image (LROC should eventually match it). If the lander were in this image it would cover only 7 pixels. Look at that image for a while and try to relate it to the image from the moon. Look at the cars. If you didn't know they were cars, you wouldn't know what they were. Look at the buildings. Those are definitely buildings. I'll say it again; this is practically the same resolution as the LROC images! You could superimpose the Moon on Rio and it would be about the right size.

Can we look at the image from the moon and say, "Yup, that's the lander all right!" Not really but if we look at the maps we have of the landing sites we can be sure that the lander is in exactly the right spot.

reply to post by Phage

Can we look at the image from the moon and say, "Yup, that's the lander all right!" Not really but if we look at the maps we have of the landing sites we can be sure that the lander is in exactly the right spot.

Conversely, if I started a thread and said that pic was from the Dark Side and thus proof of an alien ship you same people would laugh it off..

reply to post by ignorant_ape

NASA does not " lack the technology " to go to the moon - it lacks the hardware
and most critically - FUNDING , who is going to pay for it any why ???????????
any american manned lunar operation has to far exceed the scope of apollo to be viable
and that needs a far bigger program than the entire space program so far

I don't know why they didn't send a shuttle to the moon..
The shuttle should be quite capable and has ample cargo capacity for life support and fuel..
Maybe even a lander...

reply to post by backinblack


to be blunt - no it could not

here are some payload specs for spaceshuttle :

payload [ LEO ] 24400kg
payload GTO 3810 kg
payload [ polar orbit ] 12700 kg

even GTO is still within the arths gravity well - and i have read nothing to sugest that the shuttle could even acheive escape velocity - even using its entire payload as fuel

now the appollo LM [ llunar module ] has a mass of 14 696kg

and as i have previously stated - the LM is ONLY capable of recreating the apollo missions - to progress in lunar manned exploration we need a larger payload delivered to the moon

and shuttle can only get the LM to LEO - which is as much use as chocolate fireguards

Originally posted by backinblack
I don't know why they didn't send a shuttle to the moon..
The shuttle should be quite capable and has ample cargo capacity for life support and fuel..
Maybe even a lander...

The Apollo CSM and LM combined, with crew, supplies, and fuel, weighed about 38,000 kg. The Space Shuttle Orbiter, no payload or fuel, is about 78,000 kg. It can handle an additional 25,000 kg of payload, and an additional 6,000 kg of fuel, supplies, and crew. That's a total of about 109,000 kg, almost 3 times the weight of Apollo.

But the Space Shuttle only produces a total of about 7.8 million pounds of thrust, compared to the Saturn V's 8.7 million pounds. So there's no way to send a vehicle that's 287% the weight of Apollo with 90% of the force.

From just a design standpoint, it's also highly inefficient to send something like the Shuttle to the moon. You have to carry things like the landing gear and wings, only useful during landing, all the way to the moon and back and pay a big fuel penalty for it. It makes much more sense to use a capsule design like Apollo where the equipment brought along for landing (essentially just the parachutes) is a much smaller portion of the overall vehicle weight.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage

 

Can we look at the image from the moon and say, "Yup, that's the lander all right!" Not really but if we look at the maps we have of the landing sites we can be sure that the lander is in exactly the right spot.

Conversely, if I started a thread and said that pic was from the Dark Side and thus proof of an alien ship you same people would laugh it off..

That is not the converse of what I said. The converse would be that we can identify the lander from the image alone. All you did is restate my point. In this image from LROC the lander could be a boulder (or an alien ship, if you like). Since the lander is where it is supposed to be and the tracks are where they are supposed to be, the lander is identifiable because we know what it is.

But what does that have to do with the claim that the resolution of the LROC images is poor? That's what my reply was about. Even in the high resolution image of Rio, the only reason cars are "recognizable" is because of the context.