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: 463
377
<< 460  461  462    464  465  466 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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.



From information obtained from Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Ok lets get this straight.

an example of the apollo 8 transcript:


070:13:38 Anders: Go ahead.
070:13:40 Carr: Roger. Step number 2, attach the filter holder to the lens with tape on the top and bottom. Do this with the slide forward. Over


Now, when we see 070:13:38- is that when "Go ahead" began to be spoken?
No, that's when it was heard and recorded at Mission Control. It was actually said 1.28 seconds earlier.


Ok, regarding the original transcripts.
Do they have the conversations broken down in time as the example above?
If not, who timed the conversations and what did they base it on.
Which NASA footage can you claim has not been edited for time?

Secondly, regarding BBC cutting out the dead air in between the conversations.
I have a hard time believing that. Why would they go through all that trouble, and did they
really have the time to do so?

Here is another Apollo 8 broadcast

Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.
Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

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.



From information obtained from Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.


So then they knew the properties of the moon to match any meteorites found in Antarctica.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.
Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?


Once again, there is no delay from when the astronauts talk and when Houston can respond.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.


Heck I only did math to 2nd year at uni, but I make that 2 seconds - 1.11 - 1.09? 2 seconds, right??




Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?


They'd be recording it at Houston I expect, so there'd be no measureable delay from Houston at all, and whatever is considered "normal" to wherever the astronauts are.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So then they knew the properties of the moon to match any meteorites found in Antarctica.
They had a good idea of the texture of regolith and percent composition of major elements. There was no way for them to test isotope ratios or do a detailed chemical analysis, which would be required to establish the lunar origin of a sample.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

So then they knew the properties of the moon to match any meteorites found in Antarctica.
They had a good idea of the texture of regolith and percent composition of major elements. There was no way for them to test isotope ratios or do a detailed chemical analysis, which would be required to establish the lunar origin of a sample.


What do you mean by detailed chemical analysis?

In any case, they still knew what to look for.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   



Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

Is this unedited, or edited?
end of 01:09 Astronaut finishes talking
beginning of 01:11 Houston responds
So only a second in between the communication.


Heck I only did math to 2nd year at uni, but I make that 2 seconds - 1.11 - 1.09? 2 seconds, right??




End of 9, beginning of 11. So that only leaves the 10. So the 9 and 11 are like bookends.





Though they claim that they are halfway between earth and the moon,
that should still take a little over a second, right?


They'd be recording it at Houston I expect, so there'd be no measureable delay from Houston at all, and whatever is considered "normal" to wherever the astronauts are.



Yeah, but is what we are hearing coming from the image (people in a space ship) or not from the image (people on earth)? See, what you are saying makes sense if we were watching somebody at mission control responding to the astronaut talking. But we are seeing the astronaut talking and getting a response from somebody supposedly thousands of miles away.


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



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, but is what we are hearing coming from the image (people in a space ship) or not from the image (people on earth)? See, what you are saying makes sense if we were watching somebody at mission control responding to the astronaut talking. But we are seeing the astronaut talking and getting a response from somebody supposedly thousands of miles away.
You're seeing an image that was transmitted from Apollo 8 to Earth and recorded on Earth. It works the same way as audio as far as the delay goes. Houston can respond immediately.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean by detailed chemical analysis?

In any case, they still knew what to look for.
I mean analyzing the chemical and elemental makeup more than just a scattering alpha spectrometer can tell you.

I'm not sure who or what the "who" and "what" you're referring to are.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean by detailed chemical analysis?

In any case, they still knew what to look for.
I mean analyzing the chemical and elemental makeup more than just a scattering alpha spectrometer can tell you.

I'm not sure who or what the "who" and "what" you're referring to are.


Who and what von Braun and NASA.

And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.


We can often tell that they came from space, however, because many lunar meteorites have fusion crusts (the olive-green crust on the photo above) from the melting of the


bring some back home, test it against Surveyor:


Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.


And you can separate moon from non moon meteorites.

meteorites.wustl.edu...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, but is what we are hearing coming from the image (people in a space ship) or not from the image (people on earth)? See, what you are saying makes sense if we were watching somebody at mission control responding to the astronaut talking. But we are seeing the astronaut talking and getting a response from somebody supposedly thousands of miles away.
You're seeing an image that was transmitted from Apollo 8 to Earth and recorded on Earth. It works the same way as audio as far as the delay goes. Houston can respond immediately.


Its a live transmission, how does it work the same way?
The voices that we are hearing is it coming within the space craft or not?
If its within then there should have been a delay from Houston to respond.
Astronaut makes a statement, delay to earth.
Houston responds, delay to space craft, then astronaut hears it.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Im still waiting 000063.
Looks like your the one who is having a hard time answering questions.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
Somehow, I missed your post entirely. I apologize.


Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, well lets get this over with because your post is so convoluted I cant make out what your point is.
But, of course, you will forge ahead with rebutting something you don't understand, instead of asking for clarification. Because that's what you do.


From what I can understand, you say that JW made a video where he posted the dose one would get going through the VABs at a certain inclination in an unshielded craft (whatever that means). Ok so what exactly the problem, and why are people calling JW a liar about it?
DJ is calling JW a liar because he believes that no one can honestly get the amount of stuff wrong which he believes Jarrah has. I, by contrast, believe that there is no end to the fount of human fallability, which is why I use the word "wrong".


So lets take this in small chunks to find out.

What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah flashed a source on screen. DJ looked it up, and found that the numbers Jarrah was quoting were the unshielded dose of radiation. Even a mm of shielding would reduce the dosage significantly, and they had much more than that(1.25 cm, roughly.), putting it well within the survivable range. These are the maximum doses. If they could take the maximum dose, then inclination, time, etc. are useless in determining whether they would survive anything lesser. The answer is yes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh I see now, it supports Apollo and isn't capable of being manipulated to deceive readers/viewers. That's probably why. Note that it shows the probabilities of specified dose equivalents being exceeded during Solar Maximum with a shield inferior to Apollo's and that the risk is shown to be clearly more than acceptable.


The astronauts would survive the radiation in the official story. Period.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Even the video where he makes the claim is referenced, which you--I repeat--you helpfully linked everyone to. The timestamp is at around 6 minutes, if you have trouble reading the earlier screenshot for some reason. Or again later.

What I want to know is why you're reluctant to admit it, and keep trying to get everyone to go over well-travelled ground so you don't have to move on from the signpost that says "JARRAH WRONG". Jarrah makes plenty of points. Why is this one so important?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its a live transmission, how does it work the same way?
The voices that we are hearing is it coming within the space craft or not?
If its within then there should have been a delay from Houston to respond.
Astronaut makes a statement, delay to earth.
Houston responds, delay to space craft, then astronaut hears it.


The audio was a live transmission, too. Let's use my previous example of two people saying hello to each other, except we'll say they're recording video and when they say hello, they also wave to each other:

The clock starts at 0 when Earth says "Hello" and wave. At the end of Earth saying Hello, the clock is at 1 second, since it takes him 1 second to say the word and wave. It then takes 1.28 seconds for that signal to travel to the moon. So the person on the moon hears the end of the word and sees the end of the wave at 2.28 seconds. He waits one 1 second, so the clock is now at 3.28 seconds. He replies, and ends his "Hello" and wave at 4.28 seconds, since it takes him 1 second to say the word and wave. It then take 1.28 seconds for that signal to travel from the moon to the earth. So the person on the earth hears and sees the end of the reply at 5.56 seconds. He then waits 1 second, so the clock is at 6.56 seconds. He says "Hello" and waves again, ending at 7.56 seconds. It then takes 1.28 seconds to travel to the moon where the viewer hears the end of the word and sees the end of the wave at 8.84 seconds. He waits 1 second to reply, until the clock is at 9.84 seconds. He then replies with "Hello" and a wave, ending at 10.84 seconds. The signal takes 1.28 seconds to travel back to earth. The clock is at 12.12 seconds when the person on earth hears and sees the end of the reply.

Let's look at the transcript of that interaction, as recorded by the person on the earth:

00:00.00 - 00:01.00 Earth: Hello (with wave)
00:04.56 - 00:05.56 Moon: Hello (with wave)
00:06.56 - 00:07.56 Earth: Hello (with wave)
00:11.12 - 00:12.12 Moon: Hello (with wave)

See, the delay isn't apparent when Houston responds because as they're receiving the transmission, it's being recorded at the same time.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.

And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.


The very source you quote contradicts that:


Originally posted by FoosM

Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.


Of the four things it lists as subjects of comparison (chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralogy, and textures), the only one the Surveyors could establish with any certainty is the texture. They were incapable of measuring isotope ratios at all. They could only determine bulk elemental makeup of major elements, not including more exotic trace elements, and not the exact chemical compounds present. Mineralogy could only be inferred, based on elemental percentages.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.

And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.


The very source you quote contradicts that:


Originally posted by FoosM

Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.



I dont see where it does.
You have a listing of several ways to determine a supposed lunar rock.
Are you saying that Surveyors could not determine the concentrations of aluminum and calcium?





Of the four things it lists as subjects of comparison (chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralogy, and textures), the only one the Surveyors could establish with any certainty is the texture. They were incapable of measuring isotope ratios at all. They could only determine bulk elemental makeup of major elements, not including more exotic trace elements, and not the exact chemical compounds present. Mineralogy could only be inferred, based on elemental percentages.


So whats your source for that?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Its a live transmission, how does it work the same way?
The voices that we are hearing is it coming within the space craft or not?
If its within then there should have been a delay from Houston to respond.
Astronaut makes a statement, delay to earth.
Houston responds, delay to space craft, then astronaut hears it.


The audio was a live transmission, too. Let's use my previous example of two people saying hello to each other, except we'll say they're recording video and when they say hello, they also wave to each other:



We have it over the delay between earth and the moon.
The transmissions didnt always go directly to the USA (mission control), correct?
What was the delay between continents?
Spain to the US, and Australia to the US.
How much of a delay was added?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063


So lets take this in small chunks to find out.

What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?
No. You're moving the goalposts. You're trying to make me prove JW is wrong all over again, instead of acknowledging the proven fact he said something incorrect, or my point about the shielding earlier. Whether it was deliberate or accidental I do not claim to know, but it happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah flashed a source on screen. DJ looked it up, and found that the numbers Jarrah was quoting were the unshielded dose of radiation.


Found out? JW stated it. Nothing to find out.
So lets leave DJ out of this because he blew his story when he made the claims.
And blew his credibility when he continued to make such claims after it was shown to him that he was incorrect.

Let focus on where you think JW was wrong in his video series.
Because you state that JW was wrong.




Even a mm of shielding would reduce the dosage significantly, and they had much more than that(1.25 cm, roughly.), putting it well within the survivable range. These are the maximum doses. If they could take the maximum dose, then inclination, time, etc. are useless in determining whether they would survive anything lesser. The answer is yes.

The astronauts would survive the radiation in the official story. Period.


End of story?
You quickly through around some words and conclude end of story?
You are not showing how you come to your conclusion.
What dose did the astronauts receive, and what kind of shielding, and how thick would they need to block
that dose? Where do you get this information from?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Who and what von Braun and NASA.

And I dont see why you need deep chemical analysis to identify lunar rocks.


The very source you quote contradicts that:


Originally posted by FoosM

Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Taken together, these various characteristics are different from those of any type of terrestrial rock or other type of meteorite. For example, all of those meteorites in the List that are classified as feldspathic breccias are rich in the mineral anorthite, which is a plagioclase feldspar, mineralogically, and a calcium aluminum silicate, chemically. Consequently, these meteorites all have high concentrations of aluminum and calcium.



I dont see where it does.
You have a listing of several ways to determine a supposed lunar rock.
Note the "taken together" phrase. Just one of those things isn't enough to identify a meteorite as lunar in origin. You need to look at all those things.


Originally posted by FoosM
Are you saying that Surveyors could not determine the concentrations of aluminum and calcium?
Actually, it couldn't definitively list the concentrations of certain elements, calcium being one. The spectra produced were for a range of elements, with atomic weights between 30 and 47, as pointed out by Chemical Analysis of the Moon at the Surveyor VII
Landing Site: Preliminary Results
:





Originally posted by FoosM


Of the four things it lists as subjects of comparison (chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralogy, and textures), the only one the Surveyors could establish with any certainty is the texture. They were incapable of measuring isotope ratios at all. They could only determine bulk elemental makeup of major elements, not including more exotic trace elements, and not the exact chemical compounds present. Mineralogy could only be inferred, based on elemental percentages.


So whats your source for that?



The Wikipedia articles I linked to earlier listed the instruments on board. And as pointed out above, the alpha spectroscopy was simply not accurate enough to distinguish individual isotopes. It had to lump some elements together into groups because the spectra for each element was not distinct enough. There would be no hope of determining the spectra of individual, stable isotopes of the lighter elements, like oxygen.

The chemical analysis was limited to bulk elemental makeup. That's not enough to tell you definitively what chemicals those elements are combined into, or what minerals those chemicals formed.

They did have a camera and scoop, though, so the texture would have been easy enough to work out.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
We have it over the delay between earth and the moon.
The transmissions didnt always go directly to the USA (mission control), correct?
What was the delay between continents?
Spain to the US, and Australia to the US.
How much of a delay was added?
Well, by undersea cable, Houston to Australia (14,000 km) would take about 0.05 seconds. Houston to Spain (8,000 km) would take about 0.03 seconds. Anywhere via geosynchronous satellite (74,000 km) would take about 0.25 seconds.

But it doesn't matter where the signal went, if it was ultimately being recorded at mission control. If the recording machine is at the same location as the responder, there will be no delay between a question and the response.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 460  461  462    464  465  466 >>

log in

join