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: 498
377
<< 495  496  497    499  500  501 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




This is EXACTLY what I'm thinking .. how the hell did the Russian dog NOT make it because he was cooked inside his soup can LMAO

USA just 'happen' to calculate the EXACT coordinates to 'slip' through w/o frying like a Russian egg..

FoosM my man.. this is your best video post to date IMO..


Moon Fraud.com baby ~! LOL




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
So .. why haven't we seen ANY lunar surface heat radiating in ALL the Moon shots in live film ?? If we can see it with the naked eye off the street on a hot day ..

Why can't we see it in ANY of the moon films??



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Here they are, took me a minute to get all these since YT sucks on bringing up ALL the parts in one convenient sidebar.. grrrr

PART 2


PART 3


PART 4


PART 5


PART 6


PART 7


PART 8


edit on 13-6-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
So .. why haven't we seen ANY lunar surface heat radiating in ALL the Moon shots in live film ?? If we can see it with the naked eye off the street on a hot day ..

Why can't we see it in ANY of the moon films??

"Heat waves" as I've always called them require an atmosphere. Heat changes the density of the air by causing it to expand. This changes how much the air refracts light, giving the shimmering effect.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


JW I will repeat is a twat!


Name calling is not helping your case.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
So .. why haven't we seen ANY lunar surface heat radiating in ALL the Moon shots in live film ?? If we can see it with the naked eye off the street on a hot day ..

Why can't we see it in ANY of the moon films??




Did you do ANY science at school ???



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008


JW I will repeat is a twat!


Name calling is not helping your case.



I take it you watched the youtube video then!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
the Russian dog NOT make it because he was cooked inside his soup can LMAO



Have some respect for Laika!!

As little was known about the impact of spaceflight on living creatures at the time of Laika's mission, and the technology to de-orbit had not yet been developed, there was no expectation of Laika's survival. Some scientists believed humans would be unable to survive the launch or the conditions of outer space, so engineers viewed flights by non-human animals as a necessary precursor to human missions.

Laika likely died within hours after launch from overheating, possibly caused by a failure of the central R-7 sustainer to separate from the payload. The true cause and time of her death was not made public until 2002; instead, it was widely reported that she died when her oxygen ran out, or (as Soviet government initially claimed) she was euthanised prior to oxygen depletion. Nonetheless, the experiment proved that a living passenger could survive being launched into orbit and endure weightlessness, paving the way for human spaceflight and providing scientists with some of the first data on how living organisms react to spaceflight environments.

On April 11, 2008, Russian officials unveiled a monument to Laika. A small monument in her honour was built near the military research facility in Moscow which prepared Laika's flight to space. It features a dog standing on top of a rocket.

Do you have a monument in your name??? I don't think so...
edit on 13-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

edit on 13-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008


JW I will repeat is a twat!


Name calling is not helping your case.



I take it you watched the youtube video then!!!


Yeah, and its not helping your case.
Prove the shot wasn't edited.
Notice, when it came to that, the narrator came up with all kinds of hokie excuses.
But he couldn't prove it wasnt edited or shot on Earth.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


I got three minutes into the second video and caught him doing precisely what I predicted he would do. He took this article (yes, that's one of my infamous hidden links) and either intentionally misrepresents it... or simply doesn't understand it:


The Moon is generally thought to have formed and evolved through a single or a series of catastrophic heating events1, during which most of the highly volatile elements were lost. Hydrogen, being the lightest element, is believed to have been completely lost during this period2. Here we make use of considerable advances in secondary ion mass spectrometry3 to obtain improved limits on the indigenous volatile (CO2, H2O, F, S and Cl) contents of the most primitive basalts in the Moon—the lunar volcanic glasses. Although the pre-eruptive water content of the lunar volcanic glasses cannot be precisely constrained, numerical modelling of diffusive degassing of the very-low-Ti glasses provides a best estimate of 745 p.p.m. water, with a minimum of 260 p.p.m. at the 95 per cent confidence level. Our results indicate that, contrary to prevailing ideas, the bulk Moon might not be entirely depleted in highly volatile elements, including water. Thus, the presence of water must be considered in models constraining the Moon's formation and its thermal and chemical evolution.


[Emphasis mine]

Alberto Saal et al. did not find 745 ppm as Jarrah claims; they actually found between 40 and 70 ppm and then used "numerical modelling" to extrapolate the sample's hydroxyl content back in time to its origination! They made some assumptions about rates of outgassing, etc, and determined that billions of years ago, when the glass spherules were formed, the magma had a composition similar to terrestrial rock. Billions of years ago. They have since degraded, and currently have an HO content of up to 70 ppm. (To get some idea of what a small number this is, the EPA once considered 50 ppm to be an acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water!) So, what the article is actually saying is that lunar glasses contain at most about 10% of the hydroxyls found in equivalent terrestrial glasses but by extrapolating back in time using a mathematical model, the estimate that they had a hydroxyl content similar to earthly samples. Yes, this has turned planetary science on its ears... but it is not what Jarrah claims it is.

Amazing. I was able to debunk Jarrah's video before I even saw it. Do I need to watch the rest? As for whether he is intentionally cherry picking and distorting things or simply doesn't understand the research he is quoting. I will leave to you to decide.

Edit to add: Yes, they conjecture that substrata of the Moon may have retained more volatiles than previously thought; ie, there may be more water "locked up" in material beneath the surface. The surface material, however, can still be characterized as "bone dry" in comparison with earthly deserts.
edit on 13-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I didn't say JW's video was brilliant, I merely pointed out that he said nothing wrong..

BTW, Phil Plait also said there was "NO" water on the moon..Not just Webb..



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Edit to add: Yes, they conjecture that substrata of the Moon may have retained more volatiles than previously thought; ie, there may be more water "locked up" in material beneath the surface. The surface material, however, can still be characterized as "bone dry" in comparison with earthly deserts.


From what I have read, that may not be the case near the poles..

But are we questioning whether the moon "HAS" water or "HAD" water in the past ??



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



From what I have read, that may not be the case near the poles..

But are we questioning whether the moon "HAS" water or "HAD" water in the past ??


Liquid water simply cannot exist under lunar conditions. The question is how many hydroxyl radicals (HO) have bonded to lunar rocks. Recent data suggests that there is much more at the lunar poles than previously thought. It had long been assumed that the Moon's weaker gravity would have allowed most of the hydrogen present during the accretion process to have escaped. The research of Saal and others suggest that the Moon may have retained more hydrogen than previously thought, and thus there may be more hydroxyls "locked up" in minerals in the lunar crust. These hydroxyls tend to degrade upon exposure to the harsh conditions on the lunar surface. There have also been revisions to the amount of water that may have been deposited by comets, and the realization that bombardment by solar protons (part of the solar wind) could result in the formation of new hydrogen if they bind with free electrons on the lunar surface. These newly reconstituted hydrogen atoms might then bind to oxygen in SiO2 molecules, upping their hydroxyl count.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Liquid water simply cannot exist under lunar conditions.


Well actually that's not quite true unless you are merely speaking about the surface..

But still, are we discussing if the Moon Has or Had water?

Maybe Foosm can answer since he started it but I'd like to know what we are talking about..



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Amazing. I was able to debunk Jarrah's video before I even saw it. Do I need to watch the rest? As for whether he is intentionally cherry picking and distorting things or simply doesn't understand the research he is quoting. I will leave to you to decide.

Edit to add: Yes, they conjecture that substrata of the Moon may have retained more volatiles than previously thought; ie, there may be more water "locked up" in material beneath the surface. The surface material, however, can still be characterized as "bone dry" in comparison with earthly deserts.
edit on 13-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.



Yes you need to watch the rest because you haven't debunked anything yet.
I dont even think you know what your exactly debunking in the first place, do you?
What are you exactly debunking?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yes you need to watch the rest because you haven't debunked anything yet.
I dont even think you know what your exactly debunking in the first place, do you?
What are you exactly debunking?


Did you read my post? Jarrah is interpreting Saal's paper as claiming that they had discovered that the samples in question currently have hydroxyl levels of 750 ppm. That is simply not true. Read the paper. If the rest of Jarrah's video is based on this, er, misunderstanding, there is nothing further to debunk.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yes you need to watch the rest because you haven't debunked anything yet.
I dont even think you know what your exactly debunking in the first place, do you?
What are you exactly debunking?


Did you read my post? Jarrah is interpreting Saal's paper as claiming that they had discovered that the samples in question currently have hydroxyl levels of 750 ppm. That is simply not true. Read the paper. If the rest of Jarrah's video is based on this, er, misunderstanding, there is nothing further to debunk.


You are doing the exact same thing as last time.
You watch one or two videos out of a series then jump to conclusions.
You dont even know what you are debunking.
Again, what are you debunking?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You dont even know what you are debunking.
Again, what are you debunking?


That's what I asked..

Are we discussing whether the Moon HAD water in the past or HAS water now??



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by FoosM
 




This is EXACTLY what I'm thinking .. how the hell did the Russian dog NOT make it because he was cooked inside his soup can LMAO

USA just 'happen' to calculate the EXACT coordinates to 'slip' through w/o frying like a Russian egg..

FoosM my man.. this is your best video post to date IMO..


Moon Fraud.com baby ~! LOL
Because those require air. It's the air that's wavering. Even assuming that the heat would be at such levels, there is no atmosphere to be heated.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 495  496  497    499  500  501 >>

log in

join