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: 50
377
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I have to say it would be a little heartbreaking to contemplate, but if the facts bear it out . . .

I heard the comments about all the micrometeorites at [super?] ballistic speeds that would rip holes in spacesuits, people & spacecraft.

As sleazy as i think the US government has become, maybe it was all along.

Are we to question the shuttle & the space station too?
They have extended freefall shots & that would be pretty difficult to fake.
Even the vomit comet can only sustain that for very short periods [25 seconds?].
Although the Apollo 13 movie WAS filmed via extensive use of the vomit comet.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by slank
 



Rest assured, the only "sleaze" going on is in the Moon "hoax" camp.


I heard the comments about all the micrometeorites at [super?] ballistic speeds that would rip holes in spacesuits, people & spacecraft.



Yup. IF one were to strike a person or a spacecraft.

Any idea just HOW BIG space is? And how small, in comparison, a person or spacecraft is? Odds are well in our favor, compared to the micro-meteorites'.


Are we to question the shuttle & the space station too?


Well, people who believe in the Moon "hoax" are likely to believe anything....:shk:


They have extended freefall shots....
Even the vomit comet can only sustain that for very short periods [25 seconds?].


Yeah, thereabouts.


Although the Apollo 13 movie WAS filmed via extensive use of the vomit comet.


Yes, also true. But, it is the very nature of REAL filmmaking that each shot is usually quite short in length, it is the EDITING together that makes the final film seem to be seamless, in length.

There is simply no comparison to the historical record of video footage from Apollo, and the art of filmmaking....THEN, forty years ago, or today.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Another point in the 'challenge' issued by Jarrah via FoosM.

23) Do you agree with Mythbusters & RedZero that it is impossible to bounce lasers off the moon's bare surface?

Nope. Lasers were bounced off the moon's surface by both MIT and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory c. 1962, well before the moon landings.

The Mythbusters episode states that no photons are being returned to the detectors when the laser is aimed at a 'random spot on the moon'. They go on to show that useful returns come from pointing the laser and detector at (in this case) the Apollo 15 LRRR array.

Mythbuster link:
www.youtube.com...
Content at 1:30.

The Redzero content was harder to find, as it seems it's no longer online. But from the page shown in the video, I was able to garner this.



Mirrors on the Moon
-------------------

This can be done by just about anyone. Ok, maybe not everyone, but plenty have done it and it proves men have been up there.

Basically all you do is buy a laser and a detector and a light collecting mirror. Then you fire it at a precise point on the moon. There is a preflecting prism there that acts like a mirror, placed by Apollo astronauts. Now if there was nothing at that point but rock that would be the last you would see of your laser. But time and time again scientist [sic] have been getting their laser reflecteted back. Indeed, they have done a number of experiments using these reflectors. This experiment has provided a very accurate method of measuring the distance to the moon. Due to these experiments we can now tell that the moon is actually steadily rededing from the Earth.


Both are oversimplified and even a little flippant. The point is, the number of photons returned to the detector is much better when the laser is aimed at a reflector purpose-built for the job than when aimed at the surface of the moon. That's the reason the reflectors were placed.

Here's a paper on the LRRR, including a comparison of pre-Apollo returns and returns from the LRRR arrays placed during the Apollo program.

www.physics.ucsd.edu...

Note on page 3:


The illuminated spot on the moon is typically 4 to 6 kilometers in diameter but, because each corner reflector sends the light hitting it back in almost the same direction from which it comes, the teturn signal at the earth from the reflector panel is 10 to 100 times larger than the reflected intensity from the lunar surface.


In short, laser retro-reflection had been successfully performed off the bare lunar surface as early as 1962, but was inaccurate due to poor photon returns. The LRRR arrays were purpose-built to improve lunar ranging capabilities, and due to their improved reflectivity, are evidence that they exist in the locations reported by NASA.

Also of interest, the location of Lunokhod 1 has recently been pinpointed from LROC images, and ranging experiments have been conducted using it.

news.softpedia.com...

Same story. Clearly, there's something artificial up there reflecting photons.

As an aside, I've found once again that the only benefit of doing someone else's homework is that you usually find out things you didn't know (in this case, the location of Lunokhod 1). Doing your own homework would be even better, of course, and I strongly urge more hoax believers to try it.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Water in Lunar Samples
----------------------

21) Do you agree with Jay Windley that moon rocks contain no water and no evidence of the presence of water in their formation?

22) Do you agree with Jay Windley that moon rocks have ALWAYS shown a barely-detectable amount of water?

Both.

This is a typical example of a hoax proponent cherry-picking two statements out of context, ignoring the explanations associated with them, and insisting that at face value, they're inconsistent.

The principle processes that create regolith on Earth are weathering and biological processes, both of which rely to some extent on water, and both of which leave significant traces of water (and its effects) in Earthly soil. Lunar regolith is formed primarily from the impacts of meteoroids and the bombardment of the surface by solar and galactic charged particles; there's no water involved.

Samples shipped back from the Apollo missions did contain trace amounts of water, but concentrations were so low these traces were attributed to contamination from Earth's air.


“The isotopes of oxygen that exist on the moon are the same as those that exist on Earth, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell the difference,” Larry Taylor, a co-author of today’s paper, said in the [University of Tenessee] statement. “Since the early soil samples only had trace amounts of water, it was easy to make the mistake of attributing it to contamination.”


Source: www.bloomberg.com...

Recent discoveries, however, have pointed to the presence of trace amounts of water and hydroxyl in the upper layers of the moon's surface. From Brown University's release on the discovery:


The molecules and hydroxyl — a molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom — were discovered across the entire surface of earth’s nearest celestial neighbor. While the abundances are not precisely known, as much as 1,000 water molecule parts-per-million could be in the lunar soil: harvesting one ton of the top layer of the moon’s surface would yield as much as 32 ounces of water, according to scientists involved in the discovery.


Source: news.brown.edu...

The last is a fine example of how small the traces of water are in the lunar regolith; one ton of it could yeild as much as 4 cups (2 US pints) of water. Maybe.

So yes, I agree with both statements. Jarrah is typically misquoting a source to insinuate there's some inconsistency. Does Jay Windley understand how recent discoveries have changed our understanding of the presence of HO/H2O on the moon? It's a safe bet. Does Jarrah White? It's really unlikely, and you can bet he wouldn't volunteer the information even if he did.


jra

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You will see that the left side of the reflection shows a brighter lunar surface than the right side.


So what does this mean to you exactly? How is that a sign of the photo being a fake?

You are aware that the Lunar surface itself is uneven and undulating right?. Why would you expect the light that reflects off the Moon to be even when the Lunar surface isn't? Note that there are a lot more craters on the right side of the reflection in his visor, than on the left. Perhaps that plays a roll in the appearance of the brightness between the two sides?


Yet the red side is the side where you see more light bounce. Where is that coming from?


I assume you meant to say "right" side and not "red". But I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, when you say there is more light bouncing from his right side.


ANd what is causing the light bounce on the antenna?
His suit, the LM should be fully blocking the sun.


It's reflecting the Lunar surface. The antenna is a flat strip of metal. From the angle we're seeing it in that photo, it's nearly edge-on. So it's reflecting light coming from one of his sides.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
You still out there, FoosM?

Been working my way through the estimable Mr. White's 'arguments'. Think it's time to suggest a little 'quid pro quo'.

Does Jarrah have anything to say about this?

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Honestly, most of the subject matter so far is outside my area of expertise. This, however, is right up my alley. After 30 years (more or less) in telecommunications (heck, I taught it for 4), I'd love to see Jarrah White's genius applied to the question of how this was faked.

Hey, it's only fair, right? I'm doing your homework on 32 points (5 already, and 6 more as we speak), so wouldja mind checking out this 1 for me?

Awesome! Thanks in advance!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
AND AGAIN.....

www.universetoday.com...

It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon

on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo


accept or deny....proof.


and again notice no equipment and I know Japanese are honorable people. They seemed half convinced from all the articles I read on the subject. but why not show 11 and 12 landing sites?????????????



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k
You still out there, FoosM?

Been working my way through the estimable Mr. White's 'arguments'. Think it's time to suggest a little 'quid pro quo'.

Does Jarrah have anything to say about this?

ntrs.nasa.gov...

Honestly, most of the subject matter so far is outside my area of expertise. This, however, is right up my alley. After 30 years (more or less) in telecommunications (heck, I taught it for 4), I'd love to see Jarrah White's genius applied to the question of how this was faked.

Hey, it's only fair, right? I'm doing your homework on 32 points (5 already, and 6 more as we speak), so wouldja mind checking out this 1 for me?

Awesome! Thanks in advance!



I strongly second that!!

FoosM, I would like to see a link budget, taking fully into account the concept of beamwidth. This is a pretty basic thing, and all the numbers can be verified from non-NASA sources...


(dragnet53)
...again notice no equipment...

Dragnet53, now that I've stopped laughing.., may I suggest that before you expect a Kaguya 3D terrain map to show 'equipment', you learn the basic concept of 'resolution'. Once you've done that, you can come back and tell the forum just *what* you have learnt, and what the 3d terrain mapping resolution was. And apologise for wasting our time in the mistaken belief it *could* resolve that equipment..


and I know Japanese are honorable people.

And many are very well-educated. If only that was more prevalent...


They seemed half convinced from all the articles I read on the subject.

Only half-convinced? Would you care to back that up with some cited quotes?


and but why not show 11 and 12 landing sites?

Why don't you ask them..? And don't you know what the Apollo 11 and 12 terrain looked like? Surely you have researched this stuff?

Here, allow me to help:
Apollo 12 images
Apollo 11 images

Look around - what do you see? Yes, a matching 3d terrain map would be highly convincing...



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by cushycrux
AND AGAIN.....

www.universetoday.com...

It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon

on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo


accept or deny....proof.


and again notice no equipment and I know Japanese are honorable people. They seemed half convinced from all the articles I read on the subject. but why not show 11 and 12 landing sites?????????????



The Elevation Map resolution can not show the equipment...like the cars in google. And if they made pictures from 11 and 12 - you will say: AND WHERE IS 15!!!????

So I let you troll arround and leave...bye



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
You will see that the left side of the reflection shows a brighter lunar surface than the right side.


So what does this mean to you exactly? How is that a sign of the photo being a fake?

You are aware that the Lunar surface itself is uneven and undulating right?. Why would you expect the light that reflects off the Moon to be even when the Lunar surface isn't? Note that there are a lot more craters on the right side of the reflection in his visor, than on the left. Perhaps that plays a roll in the appearance of the brightness between the two sides?


Yet the red side is the side where you see more light bounce. Where is that coming from?


I assume you meant to say "right" side and not "red". But I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, when you say there is more light bouncing from his right side.


If I may be so bold as to add to this... As all good lunar researchers know, the regolith exhibits an effect known as 'heiligenschein', or 'retro-reflection'. This is an effect where the area of ground (or clouds, or whatever) directly OPPOSITE the light source (in this case, Sun) reflects more light back at you than anywhere else. You can see this effect on earth too, eg when above clouds looking at the aircraft's shadow, or sometimes on certain types of ground (some tarmac/concrete formulations or dewy grass) in the early morning or late afternoon - look around your shadow.

There is a good coverage of it here:
Retro Reflection on the Moon

It refers to several Apollo images (it even covers that dusty lens causing the centre 'smear' from Apollo 12).

So, the brightest areas of lunar surface would be those nearest the Sun, and those directly opposite. If you look at the image in question:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
You will see that the brightness is increasing towards the area opposite to the Sun. As it should. And as JRA said, the terrain - even the most gentle of slope - could also contribute as could natural variations in surface colour and brightness. The Moon isn't just one shade of grey..


Btw, thanks, Torch2k, for taking on the 64 questions video...


If you need help with any, let me know.

Once that is all debunked, I guess there's nothing left - the Aussie 'genius' is left exposed as an Aussie Ignoramus.

The ridiculous part is that ALL of this recycled garbage has been soundly debunked elsewhere. It's ALL BUNK, and yet these fanbois haven't a clue. They are truly the 'Youtube Naive', unable to string together their own argument, unable to realise that Youtube is the safe haven for idiots and fameseekers, and unable to get off their backsides and do any real research.

But they can press the button that says "Youtube Video"!!


Well done, guys! It's a start - keep up the learning....



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
well.. vids have it hands down .. so .. yea..

and on a side note, I just tried and looked this up on the main board, wasn't there, looked it up on google search on the site under 'Young Austrailian' wouldn't bring it up .. I finally had to go outside of ATS and serch google itself .. typed in the same exact thing.. and wala.. found it .. first link ..

with 191 Flags and 50 pages of replies..this doesn't even make it to the main board on TOP TOPICS (90 DAYS)




WHY? !


When we have articles such as ..

~UFO in Sydney Australia~with NO flagsand 67 pages of replies..
~Eyjafjallajökull Caldera Eruption~wtih 88 flags& 71pgs of replies
~Alleged NASA -Affiliated Astronomer Deciphers 'Intelligence' Signal From ~Nearby Stars~170flags and 67pgs of replies..
~Bank con exposed on MSNBC!~with 308 flags & ...get this 12pgs of replies....


and you don't think this isn't a Conspiracy?






[edit on 5/15/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 




because NASA won't go back.


if they wont go back that's becuase they were already there. correct??



and again notice no equipment


Posts like this make laugh!! it's because of ignorance like this right here that you guys believe all the bull# Jarrah white throws your way!!


[edit on 15-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Komodo, may I suggest:

1. If you are replying to someone/something, please QUOTE it so we know what you are talking about.

2. Do not embed wide images, they screw up the page formatting. (Added - thanks to the mods, for fixing this..)

3. If your 'code' shows (eg ..." target='_blank' />"), that should tell you that you made a mistake in your embedding/linking. Please correct it.

4. Try to keep ontopic, mmmkay?


[edit on 15-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Btw, thanks, Torch2k, for taking on the 64 questions video...


If you need help with any, let me know.


Thanks, will do, but I'm good for the time being. I picked up the load, will try to get it all the way to the dock.

It's just that whiny voice; it makes my hair hurt! Now I recall why I stayed away from his videos. Well, the other reason.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by cushycrux
AND AGAIN.....

www.universetoday.com...

It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon

on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo


accept or deny....proof.


and again notice no equipment and I know Japanese are honorable people. They seemed half convinced from all the articles I read on the subject. but why not show 11 and 12 landing sites?????????????



Let me try to explain dragnet53:
Right hand side, the one with the rover is a photo from Apollo 15
Left hand side is a computer generated image, based on jaxa data.

When NASA was hoaxing the Moon Missions, they didn't have access to the JAXA data, since that was still 40 years in the future. So they either got incredibly lucky, filming apollo 15 with hills that are 100% like those on the moon, or JAXA, realizing that their data didn't match NASA photos, decided to make their computer models according to NASA photos instead of their real data.
These are the only 2 possibilities. Wich one do you think is more likely?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Let me try to explain dragnet53:
Right hand side, the one with the rover is a photo from Apollo 15
Left hand side is a computer generated image, based on jaxa data.

When NASA was hoaxing the Moon Missions, they didn't have access to the JAXA data, since that was still 40 years in the future. So they either got incredibly lucky, filming apollo 15 with hills that are 100% like those on the moon, or JAXA, realizing that their data didn't match NASA photos, decided to make their computer models according to NASA photos instead of their real data.
These are the only 2 possibilities. Wich one do you think is more likely?


I would just add... when they create these 3d terrain models, they overlay surface detail maps on top of the 3d image - those overlays can come from any source. Jaxa has done that here, but only in the more distant background of its image.

And that's because there's a problem with the surface imagery - because of that low resolution issue we mentioned before, the surface images look *awful* at very close range. The Jaxa folk had two options for the foreground - either put the surface imagery there (which would have been a hugely blurred/blocky jpeg-artefacted smudge), or leave it as a neutral grey. That's what they (wisely) chose to do - so you only see the surface data at a distance where it is vaguely realistic.. If you look carefully at the image, you will see that the surface detail on the closer hill is already quite badly affected.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


and again notice no equipment and I know Japanese are honorable people. They seemed half convinced from all the articles I read on the subject. but why not show 11 and 12 landing sites?????????????



Speaking of "honorable", you made a statement a while back that the Soviets were ahead of us in everything (pharaphrase) dealing with space when Apollo happened. You were asked for a list of those things that they were ahead of us in.

You have two choices, either produce the list or retract the statement.

Which is it?

(look, you and I both know you were caught with you pants down here quoting Sibrel, most likely. why not just admit you screwed up and move on? do the "honorable" thing.)



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo


WHY? !


[edit on 5/15/2010 by semperfortis]


Because the "vids" are having their asses handed to them.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
at tomblvd... Nice summary!

It seems quite appropriate that this thread becomes a comprehensive guide to deBUNKing all the BUNK posted by Apollo deniers. After all, it was penned by a Youtube fanboi (WWu777) who himself deliberately attempted to mislead the forum (I'll get back to that below), quite apart from posting links to Jarrah White's similar misinformation.

So I would offer an open invitation to ANYONE who thinks that there is something that has not been properly addressed here, to bring forth any items they want debated. All I ask is that you do NOT "argue by Youtube".

In other words, don't just post a Youtube video, and say "deBUNK that!!". By all means, refer to a YT video, but express the problem in YOUR OWN WORDS. Prove that you have at least a passing familiarity and understanding of the topic at hand.

I also expect debaters to be held responsible for their words. For example, I challenged the author of this thread, WWu777, to explain his flippant, misleading and completely incorrect comment about the LLRV, when he said it "couldn't perform at all on Earth". WWu777 vanished at that point, and has not posted here since. Was that because he discovered just how many times the LLRV (LM flight simulator) flew successfully? (Despite having to operate in 6x its design gravity and in an atmosphere, by the way..)


Now *I* get stuff wrong too (rarely
) - and when I do, I happily apologise. It's good to be wrong - you learn stuff.

But WWu777? Nope, he vanishes. DESPITE the fact that he runs this website:

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

At that website (which HE posted on the first page of the thread), he proudly proclaims that:
"[we] advocate true skepticism, proper application of the Scientific Method, objectivity and unbiased open inquiry", and he loudly decries any "fallacies, ...unscientific behavior, misinformation, denial ...". Mmm. Very impressive.

Yet, when HE is shown to be in error, his personal application of the 'scientific method' is shown to be .. rather wanting.

HIS fallacies and misinformation are obviously OK.

So, like I said, how apt that his own thread rebounds upon him.

Over to you, dear reader - are there any issues that have not been properly addressed - don't forget to ELABORATE and show your understanding...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
When NASA was hoaxing the Moon Missions, they didn't have access to the JAXA data


Couldn't all of the unmanned missions prior to the Apollo landings have provided them with the correct 3D topographical data they needed to fake it?

Surely they wouldn't take the risk of just making up a horizon. They'd know we would be back in 10 - 20 years to verify it. Right ?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by ppk55]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join