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: 499
377
<< 496  497  498    500  501  502 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?
Well, are the rest of the videos based on that premise? Cause if they are, and DJ debunks it, then that means the entire series is wrong.

Say, what would you consider absolute proof that the moon landing happened?




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

That's what I asked..

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


I don't know. JW seems to be jumping around, comparing apples and oranges a lot. He talks about how Water, Hydrogen, Deuterium, Carbon, Carbon-13, and Oxygen-18 Content of Selected Lunar Material gives a water content of lunar material. That paper was specifically dealing with lunar material as a whole. In that paper, they examined a 9.3 g sample of lunar dust, a 2.7 gram and 3.7 gram piece of the same breccia, a 1.7 gram and 3.6 gram piece of another breccia, and a 2 gram piece of crystalline rock. The whole samples were heated and in some cases combusted. So they're looking at the water content in the entire sample, which, in some cases, was exposed to a regular laboratory atmosphere for several months. They argue that the exposure to Earth's atmosphere shouldn't necessarily contaminate the samples with terrestrial water, however. And they can tell the difference between terrestial water and lunar water from the deuterium ratios in the samples. But they do say that "[T]here appears to be great variability in water content between two pieces of the same breccia that had been exposed to the terrestrial atmosphere for several months."

He then compares that to the work done in Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon's interior, which is only looking at the water content inside glass spherules found in some lunar samples. This is useful for telling the water content of the interior of the moon a long time ago, when the glass formed. The previous paper is about water currently on the surface.

So he's comparing two very different things here, which really doesn't make any sense.

Also, as DJW001 points out, JW claims, in regard to the second paper, that "Alberto Saal and company estimate that around 260 ppm is likely to exist in these beads." That is simply not true. The paper says:


The degassing model provides excellent fits to the measured radial concentration profiles for all species simultaneously, at reasonable cooling rates and cooling times (Fig. 2). We found that cooling rates
greater than 4 K/s did not provide acceptable fits for all volatile species (see Supplementary Fig. 7). Cooling rates of 2 to 3 K/s over a period of ~2 to 5 min between eruption and quenching provided the best fit to all volatile profiles together; at these conditions the glass bead loses approximately 19% S, 45% F, 57% Cl and 98% H2O. The initial H2O content is not precisely constrained by the modelling, but the best fit, again considering cooling rates and times that allow acceptable fits for all volatile profiles simultaneously, is obtained for an initial H2O content of 745 p.p.m., and the H2O content must be at least 260 p.p.m. to obtain an acceptable fit (at the 95% confidence level).


They are NOT saying that the water content is currently 260 ppm. They are talking about the initial water content when the beads were formed, 3.4-3.8 billion years ago.

So JW is totally misinterpreting that paper.
edit on 14-6-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

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?
Well, are the rest of the videos based on that premise? Cause if they are, and DJ debunks it, then that means the entire series is wrong.


Whats the premise?
What exactly is DJ trying to debunk?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

So he's comparing two very different things here, which really doesn't make any sense.

Also, as DJW001 points out, JW claims, in regard to the second paper, that "Alberto Saal and company estimate that around 260 ppm is likely to exist in these beads." That is simply not true. The paper says:

They are NOT saying that the water content is currently 260 ppm. They are talking about the initial water content when the beads were formed, 3.4-3.8 billion years ago.

So JW is totally misinterpreting that paper.


Have you watched the whole series?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you watched the whole series?
I'm through the first 3 videos, which are largely nonsensical because JW is jumping around comparing different kinds of water content of different things in different points in time.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you watched the whole series?
I'm through the first 3 videos, which are largely nonsensical because JW is jumping around comparing different kinds of water content of different things in different points in time.


Oh really? Nonsensical.
Why do you think JW can jump around comparing water content in lunar rocks
if there wasnt an issue that NASA and their scientists said the moon was bone dry?
Dry, as in never had water, doesn't have water.


But with the surface of the moon looking more watery all the time, a debate rages on over the influence of water dozens of kilometers below the surface, in the lunar mantle. The presence or absence of water in the mantle helps to constrain the moon's geologic history, stretching all the way back to the time that a planet-size object collided with Earth, producing a debris cloud that coalesced into the moon, as the prevailing view holds. When the lunar samples from the Apollo manned landings arrived on Earth, geologists noticed an interesting discrepancy between the two bodies—the lunar specimens appeared to be highly depleted in volatiles such as water. There are multiple explanations for why the moon and Earth should be so different in that regard, and with better understanding of the moon's composition may come greater knowledge of its formation and evolution.

In recent years, however, some studies have begun to challenge the idea that the moon is bone-dry.



Maybe you should watch the whole series before you jump to conclusions and call
someone's work nonsensical. Thats just plain curtesy.


The question of how much water—if any—lies within the moon's interior stretches back decades and is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, Sharp notes. "It's always the way science works—that controversies arise, and various people will make different measurements or come up with different ideas, and perhaps there will be a consensus on one idea," he adds. "I don't know if we'll come to a conclusion about this anytime soon."




Here is the issue.
NASA supposedly has a vast quantity of samples never touched or studied.
I think they can resolve this issue by having independent researchers study these samples.
Right?





www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh really? Nonsensical.
Why do you think JW can jump around comparing water content in lunar rocks
if there wasnt an issue that NASA and their scientists said the moon was bone dry?
Dry, as in never had water, doesn't have water.
Yup, nonsensical. Comparing things that can't be compared doesn't make sense. And he's oddly focused on semantics.


Originally posted by FoosM
Maybe you should watch the whole series before you jump to conclusions and call
someone's work nonsensical. Thats just plain curtesy.
Well, if he somehow clears up this nonsensical comparisons and misinterpretations of scientific literature, I'll be surprised. If he does clear it up, then that just means he's doing a poor job presenting information. And I shouldn't have to watch a whole series to see if he corrects mistakes he made at the start of the series. He should just leave the mistakes out in the first place.


Originally posted by FoosM
Here is the issue.
NASA supposedly has a vast quantity of samples never touched or studied.
I think they can resolve this issue by having independent researchers study these samples.
Right?


And that's exactly what's been happening, like with the studies done by Saal, et al. We get fascinating new information as new techniques are developed.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
We are almost there...the 10000 post.

For me it's the most important conspiracy there is : The moon hoax !




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why do you think JW can jump around comparing water content in lunar rocks
if there wasnt an issue that NASA and their scientists said the moon was bone dry?
Dry, as in never had water, doesn't have water.


Thanks Foosm...

So that's the debate?

That NASA said for decades that the Moon had NO water and the real debate is did they know and not tell us or they didn't know ??



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why do you think JW can jump around comparing water content in lunar rocks
if there wasnt an issue that NASA and their scientists said the moon was bone dry?
Dry, as in never had water, doesn't have water.


Thanks Foosm...

So that's the debate?

That NASA said for decades that the Moon had NO water and the real debate is did they know and not tell us or they didn't know ??



Basically what I get from JWs series is that due to the conflict and contradictions in the scientific community regarding the lunar samples they are inconclusive as proof.

Thats why I asked what is being debunked? JW is not taking any sides.

For example, on the on hand you have a set of scientists claiming that the water found is from the moon, on the other hand you have a set of scientists say the water found was due to contamination. I mean what can somebody do with that information? Who are you to believe? Theories on how the moon was formed is hanging on this information.

If the samples are contaminated, how can they be taken seriously. If the water was found, how come we got to hear about it only recently?


edit on 15-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same.










posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats why I asked what is being debunked? JW is not taking any sides.
When he uses phrases like "fake moon rocks," I'd say he's taking a side.


Originally posted by FoosM
For example, on the on hand you have a set of scientists claiming that the water found is from the moon, on the other hand you have a set of scientists say the water found was due to contamination. I mean what can somebody do with that information? Who are you to believe? Theories on how the moon was formed is hanging on this information.
This is how science works. Theories are refined and changed as new data somes to light. But JW is presenting a false dichotomy by comparing different things (the water content of bulk samples versus the water content of specific minerals and grains from samples).


Originally posted by FoosMIf the samples are contaminated, how can they be taken seriously. If the water was found, how come we got to hear about it only recently?
*You* may have only heard about it recently, but as JW points out, papers discussing the water content in the lunar samples dates back to the paper published in 1970 looking at the Apollo 11 samples.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



JW is not taking any sides.


Ah. So there is no "debate," then. End thread.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



JW is not taking any sides.


Ah. So there is no "debate," then. End thread.


Im sorry for you, but JW's series is simply kicking butts and taking names.
I know debating him would be fruitless.
Because you wont be able to come up with with compelling arguments.

But you are welcome to try and prove me wrong




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Btw, this interview with Jarrah White on Whispers Radio is better cause he presents more evidence in it rather than just discussing his personal feelings like in the new interview. If you haven't listened to it yet, here is the link:

www.whispersradio.com...

Also, in 2001, Fox aired a TV special called "Did we land on the moon?" which makes a lot of compelling arguments and evidence that the moon landing might have been a hoax. It is exciting and only 45 minutes long. You can see it here:

video.google.com...#

So far, none of the Apollo defenders have truly refuted these compelling arguments. Instead, they either confuse you with pseudo techno babble, or they use insults and ad hominem attacks to call anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked, must be a nut. But Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, says that these overly complicated explanations to try to discredit the hoax evidence, are probably not true, whereas the simple easy-to-understand evidence pointing to a hoax are more likely to be true. Watch the documentary and see for yourself. It contains a lot of compelling points from different experts and researchers.

NASA, on the other hand, refuses to address these arguments, but instead runs away and ignores them. Logic says that if truth were on NASA's side, then they would have nothing to hide and would be glad to answer all questions fully and logically. But they don't. They'd rather ignore any skeptics or call them nutcases. But this is no surprise, for in general, the US government does NOT engage in debates with freethinkers, critical thinkers, and truth seekers who are able to think for themselves and apply real critical thinking, probably because it does not want to give credence to them, and also because it knows that it cannot win in debates with freethinkers, if the truth is not on their side.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Disingenuity gambit again, despite the information being in the text you quoted? Okay, I'll play along.


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.
If Saal's paper claimed that the samples currently have hydroxyl levels of 750 ppm, then it supports Jarrah's claim. If the paper does not claim that those are the current levels, or the amount is inaccurate, then Jarrah is wrong, just like he was with the Kovalev radiation, which, as I recall, you have refused to admit. If the rest of Jarrah's videos in the series are based on that claim, then they are working from false premises and their conclusion cannot be considered valid. It's slightly more complicated than that, but using an analogy would just confuse you.

Of course, since you watched every single one of the relevant videos, it would be easy for you to tell us in which one and at what timestamp Jarrah makes the claim, and whether subsequent videos hinge on this claim being true. Please produce those facts. I'm going to ask three times, which has been less than successful in the past, but there's always hope.

I note that the part of my post where I ask you what you would consider absolute proof of a moon landing has vanished. This is, what, the sixth time in the past few dozen pages you've quote mined, even after I've called you out on it. You really are quite transparently intellectually dishonest. Almost as much as Captain Kangaroo himself.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why do you think JW can jump around comparing water content in lunar rocks
if there wasnt an issue that NASA and their scientists said the moon was bone dry?
Dry, as in never had water, doesn't have water.


Thanks Foosm...

So that's the debate?

That NASA said for decades that the Moon had NO water and the real debate is did they know and not tell us or they didn't know ??
I'm not sure why scientists changing their position in light of new evidence would be suspicious. That's kind of exactly what they and skeptics are supposed to do, as opposed to, hypothetically, ignoring inconvenient questions and facts about said positions and trying to distract everyone from said questions.

Hypothetically.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

So far, none of the Apollo defenders have truly refuted these compelling arguments. Instead, they either confuse you with pseudo techno babble, or they use insults and ad hominem attacks to call anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked, must be a nut.
Um, no. That tends to come after they've refused to address the points, and resorted to emotive language.


But Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, says that these overly complicated explanations to try to discredit the hoax evidence, are probably not true, whereas the simple easy-to-understand evidence pointing to a hoax are more likely to be true. Watch the documentary and see for yourself. It contains a lot of compelling points from different experts and researchers.
Operative word being "more likely". A lie can get around the world before the truth can get its boots on. The truth is often complex, while lies are often simple. I mean, which is a kid more likely to understand; that babies are delivered by stork, or that daddy's penis became engorged with blood due to chemical signals coming from the brain, after which he placed it into mommy's privates, thrust energetically for an extended period, put white fluid in her tummy, and after several months of complex cellular division the kid was born?

Also, nonsense can be originated as fast as someone can think of it, while truth requires evidence. Lies will always have a first mover advantage.

Also also, HBs are remarkably reluctant to present a complete theory, clinging to "anomalies" and ignoring or dismissing all possible explanations. This is because any complete theory tends to sound silly very quickly. While the official story requires hundreds of thousands of people to co-operate, the hoax requires a significant portion of those same people to be either coerced, convicted (in the belief sense), or fooled. Said people include, literally, rocket scientists. Six times. Plus the Soviets. Plus the thousands of scientists who've checked and double checked and verified the evidence for forty years. The hoax is actually orders of magnitude more complicated than the official story. You can't claim it's simpler unless you form a complete narrative and compare it to the OS. You'll have to modify it, of course, since that's what "skeptics" and "freethinkers" do.


NASA, on the other hand, refuses to address these arguments, but instead runs away and ignores them.
Because they have better things to do then answer people who already think they're lying. The well's poisoned. I've seen HBs dismiss evidence not only because it was from NASA, but because it was from people from whom NASA has shared any information with whatsoever. The supposition that JAXA is complicit in covering up a 40-year old crime really requires evidence. Also, what happens when people can travel to the moon on a regular basis and fact-check NASA themselves? The conspiracy would inevitably be discovered, sooner or later.


Logic says that if truth were on NASA's side, then they would have nothing to hide and would be glad to answer all questions fully and logically. But they don't. They'd rather ignore any skeptics or call them nutcases.
Your claim assumes you and every other HB has some sort of right to have your concerns addressed by NASA. You don't. If NASA started regularly listening to one of you, then they have to talk to all of you. Then they wouldn't have time to build rockets.


But this is no surprise, for in general, the US government does NOT engage in debates with freethinkers, critical thinkers, and truth seekers who are able to think for themselves and apply real critical thinking, probably because it does not want to give credence to them, and also because it knows that it cannot win in debates with freethinkers, if the truth is not on their side.
Emotive language, loaded terms, unsupported claims. NASA willingly distributes a lot of their evidence, which runs directly counter to your claim of secrecy. If they had something to hide, then they'd probably be, well, hiding it. Distributing it to everyone increases the chance of some major flaw being discovered.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



back to the moon


back


Do you actually read these articles you're linking, or do you just look for the first bit that supports your argument?

The "moon wood" was never presented as a moon rock by NASA. It is several times larger than any such sample NASA has ever presented, and was likely misidentified at some point. There's the question of motive: why would NASA give out such an obvious fake, unless they screwed up massively? And if they can't even keep their rocks straight, how on Earth did they maintain a conspiracy that's fooled the world for 40 years?

Also, denigrating those who disagree with you isn't helping your claim of being reasonable.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 496  497  498    500  501  502 >>

log in

join