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: 462
377
<< 459  460  461    463  464  465 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Some say a genius I SAY A TWAT!




So come on JW supporters what did he do wrong here! make a list of all his errors!




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



So come on JW supporters what did he do wrong here! make a list of all his errors!


You're the one accusing so why don't you list all the errors and we can debate them ??



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Do you say yes??


I've yet to see a Government body that doesn't lie, so I guess that's a yes from me..
I've yet to meet a person who's never lied, yet I still trust people.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Do you say yes??


I've yet to see a Government body that doesn't lie, so I guess that's a yes from me..
I've yet to meet a person who's never lied, yet I still trust people.


Me too but I'll never trust Government..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Do you say yes??


I've yet to see a Government body that doesn't lie, so I guess that's a yes from me..
I've yet to meet a person who's never lied, yet I still trust people.


Me too but I'll never trust Government..
Well, what we have here is what's called a "double standard".



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you ever actually add to a thread or just ramble on with irrelevant posts?

If you have something to say relevant to the thread then I may respond..
If not then I certainly have wasted enough time on you already..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



So come on JW supporters what did he do wrong here! make a list of all his errors!


You're the one accusing so why don't you list all the errors and we can debate them ??


Lets see

He states he will recreate the Mythbusters experiment he couldn't!!

His statement re depth into moon dust. 1/4 to 7 inch ?

Watch the Mythbusters video even dry sand shows SOME detail.

His first moon step
JUST


His gentle step WHY no lighting from an angle like the apollo print? WE KNOW WHY!!!

Mythbusters cheated what a twat he had no vacuum

Closing print shot

His statement re vacuum chamber TOTAL BULL#!

But most IMPORTANT a simulant was used(at least MB had a vacuum chamber) NOT REAL MOON DUST!!!

Mythbusters showed detail would be shown at a far greater level than you would expect
with dry sand although even that did show some detail.

So JW's conclusion is BS

On another note I think he did the heavy stomp first so he could reinforce his ideas that the print would not be left seems to have worked with you guys.

edit on 23-5-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Lets see
He states he will recreate the Mythbusters experiment he couldn't!!
His statement re depth into moon dust. 1/4 to 7 inch ?
Watch the Mythbusters video even dry sand shows SOME detail.
His first moon step JUST
His gentle step WHY no lighting from an angle like the apollo print? WE KNOW WHY!!!
Mythbusters cheated what a twat he had no vacuum
Closing print shot
His statement re vacuum chamber TOTAL BULL#!
But most IMPORTANT a simulant was used(at least MB had a vacuum chamber) NOT REAL MOON DUST!!!
Mythbusters showed detail would be shown at a far greater level than you would expect
with dry sand although even that did show some detail.
So JW's conclusion is BS
On another note I think he did the heavy stomp first so he could reinforce his ideas that the print would not be left seems to have worked with you guys.


Actually yes, JW said 7 inches when it should have been 7cm but that's irrelevant as he didn't step that deed anyway..
The MB print looked nowhere near as good as the Apollo prints..
Did MB use the NASA simulant?

I also don't see your point with the vacuum..
I agree with JW that without a vacum moisture could get into the dust and actually help the print..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you ever actually add to a thread or just ramble on with irrelevant posts?

If you have something to say relevant to the thread then I may respond..
Calling out your double-standard is relevant, since it calls into question your objectivity.


If not then I certainly have wasted enough time on you already..
I will readily agree that you have wasted more than enough time, yes.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
Actually yes, JW said 7 inches when it should have been 7cm but that's irrelevant as he didn't step that deed anyway..
Well, it is relevant. See, if he can't reproduce the conditions of an experiment to within a reasonable degree, he can't claim it's bunk. The depth of the sand is, in fact, relevant, since it affects how much it can compress.


The MB print looked nowhere near as good as the Apollo prints..
For some reason, Tory had trouble applying the equivalent force of hundreds of pounds of astronaut and equipment under moon gravity. This may have had something to do with the fact all he could do was swing his arm.


Did MB use the NASA simulant?
Yes, they did.




I also don't see your point with the vacuum..
I agree with JW that without a vacum moisture could get into the dust and actually help the print..
That's nice. It's also irrelevant. Unless he can prove the OS could not be false under the claimed conditions or a reasonable facsimile, his conclusions are invalid.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
note to JW and other idiots - ` lunar regolith SIMULANT ` is NOT lunar regolith - its properties only " aproximate " the properties of regolith -

in the absence of water - particle shape plays the biggest role in cohesion [ required to hold an impression ]

portland cement hods a footprint / impression - with a negligable water content

i have just done the experiment - using a bag of " blue hawk " brand " finishing plaster "

and guess what - it takes an impression roughly comparable to the lunar footprints



here is my experiment - no water needed - just an anydrous particulate with a sutible grain shape to facilitate cohesion



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
and a nother question for hoax believers - regarding the ` footprints issue `

given that the only thing that JW demonstrates in his flawed experiments is that lunar regolith simulant - will not hold footprints on earth

then what is being used on the alleged set ?

video shows that it must be an anhydrous particulate - as it does not clump , and it billows when agitated

so what is it ?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Well, it is relevant. See, if he can't reproduce the conditions of an experiment to within a reasonable degree, he can't claim it's bunk. The depth of the sand is, in fact, relevant, since it affects how much it can compress.

Well then Buzz Aldrin said 7 cm depth and JW filled the box to roughly 10cm, so no issue there..


For some reason, Tory had trouble applying the equivalent force of hundreds of pounds of astronaut and equipment under moon gravity. This may have had something to do with the fact all he could do was swing his arm.

Bit odd given that the astronauts would weigh roughly 1/6 of their earth weight..
Even with their gear that would be easy to apply on earth..



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and a nother question for hoax believers - regarding the ` footprints issue `
given that the only thing that JW demonstrates in his flawed experiments is that lunar regolith simulant - will not hold footprints on earth
then what is being used on the alleged set ?
video shows that it must be an anhydrous particulate - as it does not clump , and it billows when agitated
so what is it ?


Maybe the finishing plaster that you just used but they threw in some color.

edit on 23-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Well, it is relevant. See, if he can't reproduce the conditions of an experiment to within a reasonable degree, he can't claim it's bunk. The depth of the sand is, in fact, relevant, since it affects how much it can compress.

Well then Buzz Aldrin said 7 cm depth and JW filled the box to roughly 10cm, so no issue there..
Point. I'm not sure of the exact science, though one would have to account for gravity differences.



For some reason, Tory had trouble applying the equivalent force of hundreds of pounds of astronaut and equipment under moon gravity. This may have had something to do with the fact all he could do was swing his arm.

Bit odd given that the astronauts would weigh roughly 1/6 of their earth weight..
Even with their gear that would be easy to apply on earth..
Apollo suits, according to NASA, were about 180 lbs. Assuming that the astronauts weighed more than 120 lbs--unless they were actually adolescent boys--that would've put them at over 400 lbs. of weight. That's around 66.67 lbs of force that has to be applied roughly straight down.

Tory hit it at an angle, moving slowly, and still got clear footprints. Maybe not as clear as the photos, sure, but when even that imperfect simulation can produce consistent results with the moon landings, it's corroboration.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Actually yes, JW said 7 inches when it should have been 7cm but that's irrelevant as he didn't step that deed anyway..
The MB print looked nowhere near as good as the Apollo prints..
Did MB use the NASA simulant?

I also don't see your point with the vacuum..
I agree with JW that without a vacum moisture could get into the dust and actually help the print..



The MB looked ok and yes they used the simulant HENCE my comment neither used actual moon dust!
The vacuum ment the MB print was created under similar conditions JW couldn't do that!.
The simulant is dried do you or JW really think it would absorb enough water in such a short time to change the results ,clutching and straws I think!!!



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Im still waiting 000063.
Looks like your the one who is having a hard time answering questions.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and a nother question for hoax believers - regarding the ` footprints issue `

given that the only thing that JW demonstrates in his flawed experiments is that lunar regolith simulant - will not hold footprints on earth

then what is being used on the alleged set ?

video shows that it must be an anhydrous particulate - as it does not clump , and it billows when agitated

so what is it ?


Show us a video where you can clearly see detailed footprints.
What they use in the photos can and is probably different that what they use in the video.
This has been stated countless times. But you guys get fooled so easily on these simple bait and switch type tricks.

Secondly, has NASA made prints with the LUNAR soil that they brought back to show the rest of the world its wondrous properties?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
note to JW and other idiots - ` lunar regolith SIMULANT ` is NOT lunar regolith - its properties only " aproximate " the properties of regolith -

in the absence of water - particle shape plays the biggest role in cohesion [ required to hold an impression ]

portland cement hods a footprint / impression - with a negligable water content

i have just done the experiment - using a bag of " blue hawk " brand " finishing plaster "

and guess what - it takes an impression roughly comparable to the lunar footprints



here is my experiment - no water needed - just an anydrous particulate with a sutible grain shape to facilitate cohesion


WTH. Fail.

Note to all idiots, if portland cement is a good substitute why is NASA and other space agencies wasting tax dollars on making and using Lunar simulants?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

But most IMPORTANT a simulant was used(at least MB had a vacuum chamber) NOT REAL MOON DUST!!!

Mythbusters showed detail would be shown at a far greater level than you would expect
with dry sand although even that did show some detail.

So JW's conclusion is BS

On another note I think he did the heavy stomp first so he could reinforce his ideas that the print would not be left seems to have worked with you guys.

edit on 23-5-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


NASA didn't use "moon dust" when they faked the landing.
But they did have a special simulant available for them to use at the time.
So what did they base that on I wonder?
LOL.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 459  460  461    463  464  465 >>

log in

join