Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

Well thats why I was asking for confirmation.
Remember, in order to land the LM they needed enough light to see.
I would question the logic of landing near the terminator, at least described in the book.

True, but remember, with no real atmosphere the moon doesn't really have what we call dusk..
It's pretty much light or dark apart from any shadows that may form at the terminator..

The LM would also have still been moving and may have covered quite a distance before touchdown..

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylorWhat do you get for the sun's altitude at 09:18 UTC on February 5th, 1971?

For the Sun at Fra Mauro in the morning?
12 degrees.

I got closer to 10 degrees for the planned landing location at the above time, and 9.5 degrees for the planned Apollo 13 landing time. Since the panned landing site for Apollo 13 was used for Apollo 14, and the sun angle is really close, then the Apollo 14 landing gives you a good idea of what the lighting conditions would have been for the Apollo 13 landing.

Originally posted by FoosM

Look, if you want to go build a rocket and land on the moon, that would probably be stupid and brave on your part. But if a cadre of scientists, engineers, planners, politicians, realize something is not possible, they are not going to stake their reputation and do it.

Circular logic. They wouldn't have tried to do it if it was impossible, therefore they didn't try it.

Government shouldn't be in the business of using tax money on impossible projects.

You...you aren't familiar with how government works, are you?

However, governments are known for lying and will lie about impossible things. Like Bin Laden hiding in a cave with a dialysis machine.

How is that impossible, exactly? It's not like he didn't have a logistics network. And those statements were generally qualified. Turned out he was hiding in a nice house, almost certainly with the assistance of people within the Pakistani government.

Nice red herring, BTW.

Of course, you just said that the entire Soviet space program was a hoax as well. I mean, if it was impossible, then they weren't actually trying, right?

I JUST said that? Where did i JUST say that.

If the US would not have really tried to go to the moon because it was impossible, then the Soviets would not have tried to go to the moon because it was impossible. Unless you're saying the USSR was trying to do something which was impossible, which, as you claim, people never do. Either they were trying to do something impossible(proving you wrong), or they were faking it just like you claim the US was.

You see what I mean. No evidence.

I am sure, at this point, you are literally not seeing the same words I am typing.

Are you saying that it was impossible to land on the moon and get it off?

The moon is not alive!

FoosM, are you claiming that it impossible for a lunar module, as reported by NASA, to land on the moon and take off again?

Amazing how much shorter my post got. You still haven't provided the evidence for your assertion that Jarrah covered the flag-waving. (If you keep avoiding that question, I'll reveal something in my next post.) You have not provided evidence there was no one who saw or recorded the lightning strike. (There was, by the way.) In fact, you have tried to pretend my request for evidence never existed. Just like you usually quote mine. I also pointed out how you already "knew" the landings were faked before the "anomalies" you consider holy writ "proved" it. I also pointed out that you want a source to corroborate NASA's sources which has absolutely no connection with NASA, which is sort of like wanting a drink of water that doesn't have hydrogen atoms in it.

You can't say what evidence, however fantastic, it would take to prove the landings were real. Because it's impossible. You are incapable of imagining a world where you are wrong.

reply to post by 000063

You are incapable of imagining a world where you are wrong.

I don't see much difference in your unequivocal belief in the integrity of NASA..

After all, aren't they what your entire argument is based on??

Originally posted by jra

There isn't much for high hills in the fra Mauro area. Nothing close to the mountains we see at the Apollo 15 - 17 landing sites. Since Apollo 14 landed roughly where Apollo 13 would have, we have a good idea of what the terrain looks like. Apollo 14 landing site panorama

edit on 1-7-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)

Maybe you guys are right, there is no issue here.

To provide to LM crew with the optimum visibility during the final phase of the descent and landing, the local sun angle had to be within 5 and 14 degrees above the eastern horizon (behind the LM). These lighting conditions allowed the LM crew to visually evaluate the landing area they were headed into and select the most appropriate location for touchdown.

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Government shouldn't be in the business of using tax money on impossible projects.

You...you aren't familiar with how government works, are you?

If you we are talking US government, spending tax money on impossible projects was not the intention for the founding fathers. And the money that the government made was mostly from trade, not income tax. Government was supposed to provide border security and maintain the rights of the people. Obviously they financed public works, etc. Projects with reasonable goals.

Apollo was beyond reasonable. As it was a public marketing stunt. A race to land men on the moon? To what end? It was so successful we have moon bases and scientific & commercial trips to the moon today, right?

reply to post by backinblack


As I have pointed out several times, NASA's results and data have been corroborated, over and over, by thousands of scientists around the world, for over forty years. Any conspiracy theory positing the landings were faked needs to explain how that was done. With evidence, not an unsupported hypothetical. And that's not the only thing.

reply to post by FoosM


That's three strikes, FoosM. Three times you haven't answered the question of which videos Jarrah addresses the flag-waving in. Time to reveal the truth.

I lied.

Or more accurately, I bluffed.

I have not watched all of Jarrah's videos. That would be ridiculous. In fact, the tactic of referring debunkers who ask a prickly question to Jarrah's videos. Given that he has dozens, it's pretty unlikely they would actually find it.

I decided that turnabout was fair play, and decided to see if I could take one of your nitpicking questions and trying to use it to get you to actually produce evidence. So I lied about having watched Jarrah's videos. I don't actually know whether he addresses the flag waving or not. I figured you'd actually either provide the video, at which point I'd admit my deception, or you'd duck and weave three times, at which point I'd admit my deception.

You went for the latter option. In fact, at one point, you directly asked me why I didn't post the video I was claiming didn't exist. This was after I said that all you had to do to prove me wrong was to post or link to the video. Perhaps you suspected some sort of trick. I'm not sure how proving something exists that I claimed doesn't exist, and thus, proving me wrong, could be some sort of trick, but I digress.

Here's the thing; by refusing to provide evidence, it's pretty clear that one of three possibilities are in effect;

a)You looked, and found there was no video, and then tried to divert the burden of proof.
b)You don't actually look at the videos you keep telling everyone else to look at, and are hoping that they find your evidence for you. If they don't, you can claim they aren't providing evidence to support their claim, when it's your claim they're not supporting.
c)You're so reluctant to make direct claims that you can't prove me wrong. Of course, if this is the case, you could always just post the video now that I've explained the trick.

Either way, your intellectual dishonesty is exposed, and that's the important part.

With that, I'm done. I have a "Greatest Hits" of my time here saved, so if anyone wants it feel free to PM me. I might drop in from time to time, but I won't be a regular anymore.

And to answer your rhetorical question, "because it's there". Or, more prosaically, "FOR SCIENCE!!1!".

reply to post by 000063

As I have pointed out several times, NASA's results and data have been corroborated, over and over, by thousands of scientists around the world, for over forty years. Any conspiracy theory positing the landings were faked needs to explain how that was done. With evidence, not an unsupported hypothetical. And that's not the only thing.

Rubbish, how did these "thousands of scientists" replicate NASA's information to corroborate their work??

Have they got their own spacecraft??

reply to post by FoosM

Maybe you guys are right, there is no issue here.

Spoken like a scholar and a gentleman. Have a star and remind me of this post if I ever accuse you of never ceding a point.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063

 

As I have pointed out several times, NASA's results and data have been corroborated, over and over, by thousands of scientists around the world, for over forty years. Any conspiracy theory positing the landings were faked needs to explain how that was done. With evidence, not an unsupported hypothetical. And that's not the only thing.

Rubbish, how did these "thousands of scientists" replicate NASA's information to corroborate their work??

Have they got their own spacecraft??

In the case of the USSR, JAXA, and India's space agency, yes.

Perhaps "corroborate" was the wrong word. Perhaps I should've used "confirm". Remember, the moon landings may be one of the best documented and most open scientific endeavors in history. There is a massive archive of hundreds of photos and archives between the six successful manned landings and several unmanned ones, and they're all public. In fact, the photo archive has been linked several times in this thread. Those are not the actions of people who are trying to hide something. In fact, that is precisely the opposite of hiding something. Either they had and have total confidence in their faked evidence (which they have to know would be busted sooner or later, as science advances, or else be rather incompetent), or the evidence is real.

There's a reason most Hoax Believers' evidence boils down to "it looks wrong". If NASA somehow has the power to influence almost every scientist between 1969 and now who has ever looked at their data and records (thousands, and that's vastly lowballing it) with such competence that not a single one of these scientists has made a deathbed confession, gone public with evidence NASA leaned on them, or found some way to distribute the evidence of the faked missions covertly, and done it for over forty years, then they had enough power to end the Cold War in about a week. In other words, if they had the means to plan, execute, and conceal, then the motive is gone.

Originally posted by 000063


That's three strikes, FoosM. Three times you haven't answered the question of which videos Jarrah addresses the flag-waving in. Time to reveal the truth.

I lied.

Or more accurately, I bluffed.

I have not watched all of Jarrah's videos. That would be ridiculous. In fact, the tactic of referring debunkers who ask a prickly question to Jarrah's videos. Given that he has dozens, it's pretty unlikely they would actually find it.

Wow.
Well I recall JW trying some similar tactic and Apollo defenders using that against him.
Without further ado... something that you can take with you.
I present to you... the amazing moving flag on the moon!

reply to post by FoosM


Congratulations. Jarrah proved that the flag looked wrinkled but wasn't moving. Suitably dramatic music for an epic fail.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Congratulations. Jarrah proved that the flag looked wrinkled but wasn't moving. Suitably dramatic music for an epic fail.

If the flag didn't move then why did the debunkers give so many reasons why it did??

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Congratulations. Jarrah proved that the flag looked wrinkled but wasn't moving. Suitably dramatic music for an epic fail.

How can you sit there and say the flag didnt move?
Did you just watch the first few seconds of the video?


Let me add... or is it some sort of hysterical blindness??

reply to post by FoosM

How can you sit there and say the flag didnt move?
Did you just watch the first few seconds of the video?

I just went back and watched the video. The flag is stark still until the astronaut enters the frame. Then Jarrah starts doing some heavy back and forth stuff. He needs to show the entire, continuous, unbroken sequence to rule out video distortion.

Maybe this might be more clear?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How can you sit there and say the flag didnt move?
Did you just watch the first few seconds of the video?

I just went back and watched the video. The flag is stark still until the astronaut enters the frame. Then Jarrah starts doing some heavy back and forth stuff. He needs to show the entire, continuous, unbroken sequence to rule out video distortion.

Why?
The video is a RESPONSE.
And thats what I said JW did, he made a response video.
So if you were following the debate you would already have seen the original video.

And prior to that one he made this one as a response:

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063


That's three strikes, FoosM. Three times you haven't answered the question of which videos Jarrah addresses the flag-waving in. Time to reveal the truth.

I lied.

Or more accurately, I bluffed.

I have not watched all of Jarrah's videos. That would be ridiculous. In fact, the tactic of referring debunkers who ask a prickly question to Jarrah's videos. Given that he has dozens, it's pretty unlikely they would actually find it.

Wow.
Well I recall JW trying some similar tactic and Apollo defenders using that against him.
Without further ado... something that you can take with you.
I present to you... the amazing moving flag on the moon!
yvid#dW9qcL4LiUg

You're trying to obscure the fact that you refused to produce the video relating to the flag-waving under direct questioning, up until I pointed out the trap you had fallen into by doing so. Just like a few pages back when I asked you for the thickness of the Command Module, and you hemmed and hawed for a day or two, even point-blank refusing at one point. Then I opened the question up to the other HBs, and it was answered in less than twenty minutes. You promptly acted like some sort of point had been proved, trying to razzle-dazzle everyone into forgetting that you hadn't produced it

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How can you sit there and say the flag didnt move?
Did you just watch the first few seconds of the video?

I just went back and watched the video. The flag is stark still until the astronaut enters the frame. Then Jarrah starts doing some heavy back and forth stuff. He needs to show the entire, continuous, unbroken sequence to rule out video distortion.

So now you say it did move??

I note you got multiple stars for saying it didn't..
I rest my case on the "star feast" comments.

One side of this debate will simply star anything..