Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Exuberant1


Looks like this "image" is nowhere to be found except in an animation of the 3d reconstruction of the moon surface. Where exactly is it claimed that this is an actual image of the moon surface? The ones I found from Selene were not even close to that level of detail.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by -PLB-]

Originally posted by ppk55

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]

www.lowell.edu...
Mapping the moon for apollo was pretty much done by hand (or by eyesight) so getting that close a match would be quite a feat!
Nah, the only way i can see how they could have done that would be to send somebody up there and have him take a few hundred pictures of the landscape and use those to hoax the landing back here on earth.

Originally posted by debunky

www.lowell.edu...
Mapping the moon for apollo was pretty much done by hand (or by eyesight) so getting that close a match would be quite a feat!
Nah, the only way i can see how they could have done that would be to send somebody up there and have him take a few hundred pictures of the landscape and use those to hoax the landing back here on earth.

NASA probably send someone in '68 to take pictures of all landscapes, make all trails, and place all the equipment, so they could fake them in '69 in a studio.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by cushycrux
A view month ago i investigated the "Identical Background" Issue. This was my result:

Can you give us a link to the images you are using?

This are different Pictures from Mount Hadley.

One is This:
science.ksc.nasa.gov...

can't find the other now, but you can find many pictures of mount hadley with google search in more different angels.

lmgtfy.com...

[edit on 16-5-2010 by cushycrux]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by cushycrux
A view month ago i investigated the "Identical Background" Issue. This was my result:

Can you give us a link to the images you are using?

This are different Pictures from Mount Hadley.

One is This:
science.ksc.nasa.gov...

can't find the other now, but you can find many pictures of mount hadley with google search in more different angels.

lmgtfy.com...

[edit on 16-5-2010 by cushycrux]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by cushycrux]

It's impossible to make any kind of decision as to what your post means without the exact images that were used. I'm not even sure what your point is.

reply to post by Iwasas


great post!! you just said it all!

Originally posted by Iwasas

...fame seeking, usually DVD selling 'experts' are met with logical, scientific debate they quickly become confused and realise they're out of their depth...

...resort to distraction and evasion tactics...

...they move out of home after flunking school and they can't afford a computer or pay any Internet bills on their McDonald's wages...

...poor education. Probably to ensure that people in general are too stupid...

...directly/indirectly make money from their gullible followers. Generating Internet traffic generates money

...I guarantee he's making a nice little earner on the side with all of this...

...He simply preys on people who are so desperate to not believe anything...

...everyone who follows these types of videos literally has no scientific or technical knowledge whatsoever. They argue parrot style...

...[they] get confused...

...People like JW are a menace to society, they are out for themselves only and nothing else. Not only do they help dumb down others, but they also give true conspiracy theorists and anyone with an 'alternative view' a bad name.

I find your posting to frankly be an embarrassment to ATS. You go on and on and on, and on, with personal attack after personal attack after personal attack, after personal attack, without simply focusing on why each point of evidence is incorrect.

Jarrah White does not seem to profit in any way, shape, or form from his Youtube videos and even if he did there would be nothing wrong with that as he is very obviously sincere in his belief. I find the way you attack him to be disgusting and pathetic. Just focus on the evidence and otherwise shut your trap.

reply to post by Iwasas


JW is one of many who believe the moon landing was fake. You think he is a menace too society? That too me thinks he is on the right track and it ticks you off. I watched the move Capricorn One and also Paper Moon. Both tell me they faked it and couldn't get a ship through the Radiation belt. Even with the Hubble telescope they have to turn it off in some areas of the radiation belt where it is a heavy dosage.

One also ask how did the film get past the radiation without being damaged?

i know this would be damaging to the USA if they did ever fake the moon landing. But USA is dying and our politicians could care less to fix her. Washington is full of lies and deceit.

Originally posted by dragnet53


That too me thinks he is on the right track and it ticks you off. I watched the move Capricorn One and also Paper Moon. Both tell me they faked it and couldn't get a ship through the Radiation belt.

Uh, drag, you do know Capricon One was a sci-fi movie, and NOT a documentary, don't you?

Shouldn't that be something you know before debating the moon hoax?

(Paper Moon was just a pile of garbage masquerading as a documentary).

Even with the Hubble telescope they have to turn it off in some areas of the radiation belt where it is a heavy dosage.

And? If that is true what does it mean? Did Apollo go through those exact same areas?, did they spend the same amount of time in it?

And can you please be specific as to what kind of radiation, at what amount, you are talking about?

One also ask how did the film get past the radiation without being damaged?

How does film go through the x-ray machines at the airport without damage?

i know this would be damaging to the USA if they did ever fake the moon landing. But USA is dying and our politicians could care less to fix her. Washington is full of lies and deceit.

It would be damaging to the US if they faked the moon landings, so they did it anyway, SIX FREAKING TIMES!

And drag, you've got a LOT of unanswered questions that are piling up. Are you ever going to answer them?

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Iwasas

 

JW is one of many who believe the moon landing was fake. You think he is a menace too society? That too me thinks he is on the right track and it ticks you off. I watched the move Capricorn One and also Paper Moon. Both tell me they faked it and couldn't get a ship through the Radiation belt. Even with the Hubble telescope they have to turn it off in some areas of the radiation belt where it is a heavy dosage.

One also ask how did the film get past the radiation without being damaged?

i know this would be damaging to the USA if they did ever fake the moon landing. But USA is dying and our politicians could care less to fix her. Washington is full of lies and deceit.

Tell me your joking your using a hollywood movie to prove your point????
As far as radiation with limited exposure the radiation in the belt will not kill anyone instantly. Long term exposure will indeed cause health risks in the future but it wont kill you instantly. Now your welcome to prove me wrong go find out the dosages received the amount of time it takes. Ill be waiting for your results and we can discuss.

31) Did NASA truly not believe the fatal Apollo 1 plugs-out test would be hazardous, when as early as 1964 they had compiled a report documenting past oxygen fires that 'illustrate in concrete fashion the potential dangers of 100% oxygen atmospheres'?

Emanuel M. Roth, of the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research in Albuquerque, NM was the author of the report mentioned by the newspaper. Not that JW went out of his way to cite this, or even identify the newspaper and date of the article. I had to squint, then search to find the original material.

First, I was able to find an abstract of the report here:

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Unfortunately, it didn't contain that specific quote. Still, references are our friends, and they pointed to the four parts of the original:

NASA SP-47: ntrs.nasa.gov...

NASA SP-48: ntrs.nasa.gov...

NASA SP-117: ntrs.nasa.gov...

NASA SP-118: ntrs.nasa.gov...

On page 100 of SP-48, we do find the quote from the newspaper. Not surprisingly, there's more than the paper (or JW) let on:

These accidents illustrate in concrete fashion the potential dangers of 100 percent oxygen atmospheres. It can be argued that the lack of professional fire-safety engineering may have been a major factor in these
accidents.

Page 103 has a bit more to say on the matter:

After reviewing these data, is there actual justification for eliminating 100 percent oxygen environments in space cabins as an excessive risk? The argument against this step may be mustered as follows.

All the data presented in this report are of an idealized nature. The probability of having fires of the well-mixed homogeneous gaseous variety is extremely low. Hydraulic systems, machinery requiring lubricants,
propellant, and all of the hazardous equipment and conditions outlined in Chapter 6 can be eliminated from the cabin. Only electrical insulation, clothing and other fabrics, mattress or padding materials, and paper are
the fuels which cannot be eliminated. Proper fireproofing and choice of these materials and adequate fire discipline in the crew as outlined in Chapter 6 will reduce the hazard in even these combustion systems to a
negligible minimum.

In short, in the words of the very report referred to in the video, 100% oxygen environments can be extremely dangerous, but proper safety engineering, materials selection, and crew training can reduce the hazard to a minimum.

Just another case where this video twists statements to hoodwink viewers. I can almost forgive followers for not looking up the original material in this case, since it was an ugly job locating it; however, there's absolutely no such excuse for the presenter.

While I'm on the subject of the Apollo fire (without question my least favorite part of researching the record), I thought I'd tackle another of the Big 32.

28) Were NASA unaware of the fire hazard posed by pure oxygen at 16-20 psi, as Frank Borman told the US Congress and Senate?

Frank Borman's testimony can be found here:
history.nasa.gov...
The portion shown in the vid commences on page 81.

No, the source of the quote wasn't identifed. Yes, you guessed, I had to look it up. Again.

And yes, NASA was essentially unaware of the risk posed, because as far as they were concerned, and in accordance with papers presented by researchers such as Dr. Roth, they felt confident they had taken sufficient precautions to eliminate the risk.

From page 81:

Mr. TEAGUE: Before this happened, what kind of condition did you think existed?

Colonel BORMAN: I don't believe that any of us recognized that the test conditions for this test were hazardous. I myself in Gemini 7 flew for 2 weeks in a 100 percent O2 environment. We tested on the ground with 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute O2, we purged with 20.7 pounds per square inch absolute O2. In no way did I consider the test conditions hazardous.

Astronauts had been working in 100% oxygen environments for years. NASA felt that combustible materials were adequately separated from potential ignition sources to ensure a fire could not start. As the testimony progresses, we get to see how confident.

From page 85:

Mr. MILLER: Colonel, if you had been a member of the crew, would you have hesitated on that day to get into the vehicle that then existed?

Colonel BORMAN: No, sir.

Or from page 89:

Mr. DAVIS: The course which you decided, from all the data you had, from all the premises you had, to form conclusions, was the safest and quickest, and you could find no reason to have misgivings about it.

Colonel BORMAN: Yes, sir.

So were they right? Well, of course not. Yet these hearings weren't just about confirming what had happened, they were also about determining why it had happened. There're plenty of words like over-confidence, complacency, and failure used throughout the report, and the following exchange comes on page 90:

Mr. FULTON: Before you leave that point, you mentioned a possibility that might have occurred. Let me ask your judgment. If you had known then what you realize now you would not only not have entered the capsule under those same conditions but you would have advised the crew not to enter, isn't that correct?

Colonel BORMAN: That is correct.

So, yes, NASA made a mistake. They committed an oversight. They were also fully aware of the issue and willing to take steps to resolve it, as testimony goes on to point out.

Should this have been so hard to find? More importantly, should it have been made so hard to find by neglecting to identify the source, as I've done here?

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Iwasas

 

JW is one of many who believe the moon landing was fake. You think he is a menace too society? That too me thinks he is on the right track and it ticks you off. I watched the move Capricorn One and also Paper Moon. Both tell me they faked it and couldn't get a ship through the Radiation belt. Even with the Hubble telescope they have to turn it off in some areas of the radiation belt where it is a heavy dosage.

One also ask how did the film get past the radiation without being damaged?

i know this would be damaging to the USA if they did ever fake the moon landing. But USA is dying and our politicians could care less to fix her. Washington is full of lies and deceit.

Tell me your joking your using a hollywood movie to prove your point????
As far as radiation with limited exposure the radiation in the belt will not kill anyone instantly. Long term exposure will indeed cause health risks in the future but it wont kill you instantly. Now your welcome to prove me wrong go find out the dosages received the amount of time it takes. Ill be waiting for your results and we can discuss.

Capricorn one shows how it can be hoaxed.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by dragnet53]

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

I agree. They did have automatic exposure in those days, but it would be useless for their purposes. This latest turn in the thread actually got me wondering if Kodak developed the "Instamatic" camera in the hopes that it would be used in space. Those clunky film cassettes were perfect for clumsy space gloves.

sterileeye.com...

All about the cameras. kodak made something useless because NASA won't go back.

Except they got this wrong:

A total of 1407 exposures was made during the Apollo 11 mission, on 9 magazines of film. 857 black & white photos and 550 color photos. Only the film magazines were brought back from the moon. 13 Hasselblad cameras were left behind on the lunar surface during the Apollo program.

A camera was returned

So how did NASA make a mistake if they knew what they were doing?

They're human beings? We do make mistakes, alot of them even though we do something we know. Pointless question

Originally posted by FoosM

Except they got this wrong:

A camera was returned

So how did NASA make a mistake if they knew what they were doing?

So thats all you have to contribute after leaving the thread a couple of pages back and now returning?

Congratulations, you've managed to avoid all those difficult questions you were asked. Unfortunately it hasnt gone un-noticed.

Seriously the mind boggles...FoosM i suggest you review this link, it may help you:

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 17-5-2010 by zvezdar]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by zvezdar]

Originally posted by FoosM
....
Except they got this wrong:

A total of 1407 exposures was made during the Apollo 11 mission, on 9 magazines of film. 857 black & white photos and 550 color photos. Only the film magazines were brought back from the moon. 13 Hasselblad cameras were left behind on the lunar surface during the Apollo program.

A camera was returned

FoosM, in the interest of actually contributing to the thread.. it would be greatly appreciated if you would cite your claims. It doesn't matter which side you are on (I see you are now conceding that Apollo went to the Moon..?) - if you make a claim, it should be backed up.

So, which Hass came back from the lunar surface? As far as I was aware, all 12 cameras that reached the surface were left there. But I'm happy to learn if that was not the case. I'll even thank you very politely if you can supply that information, from a credible source..

Having said that, I'm not sure why it is anything more than interesting trivia - can you elaborate on exactly what your point is?


And could you name any large organisation that doesn't make mistakes? If not, can you explain why you think NASA should be immune, or who it was that claimed they were perfect?


You know, in more than one line of text, perhaps?

Originally posted by ppk55

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]

Of course they did, they used photogrammetry

If you take several photographs of an object from different angles, and locate the features of that object in relation to the fiducials, and you know something about the design of the camera, you can actually reconstruct the three-dimensional geometry of the object. This is what photogrammetry tries to do. Mapmakers use photogrammetry to render aerial photographs into maps. Architects use photogrammetry to measure the features of existing buildings quickly and easily.

"Ranger (1961 - 1965)
The Ranger series was the first U.S. attempt to obtain close-up images of the Lunar surface. The Ranger spacecraft were designed to fly straight down towards the Moon and send images back until the moment of impact. Shown above is the Ranger spacecraft and an image of the Moon taken by the Ranger 7 A series camera immediately before impact. This image has a resolution of .5 meters.

Lunar Orbiter (1966 - 1967)
Five Lunar Orbiter missions were launched in 1966 through 1967 with the purpose of mapping the lunar surface before the Apollo landings. All five missions were successful, and 99% of the Moon was photographed with a resolution of 60 m or better (how much better??). The first three missions were dedicated to imaging 20 potential lunar landing sites, selected based on Earth-based observations. These were flown at low inclination orbits. "


And of course Surveyor had landed.
So what is NASA hiding?


"Support craft photography
Rangers 7,8,9 - approx 17,000 orbitals
Surveyors 3,5,6,7 - approx 850 surface photos
Lunar Orbiters 1-5 - Approx 3000 orbitals

~Of the 20,850 support craft photos, fewer than 700 are digitized faithfully~
Of these, ony the Lunar Orbiter images are fairly represented at LPI's Lunar Orbiter Digital Atlas, though incomplete and much smaller and lower resolution than original format. The rest of this photography is virtually absent, with perhaps one or two representatives accessible. This is an important ancillary point, but our main drive should be the Apollo Mission Photography. (Note: LPI has nearly all the Hasselblad images online, but displayed in very low resolution, a result of some terribly questionable overprocessing. JSC's digital image collection has far fewer images, and they are also of low quality. The ALSJ has many good representatives, but in itself is far from hitting the mark of excellence this data deserves. If not for the few high quality images obtained and scanned by certain individuals willing to invest themselves there would be few available indeed.) "

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They're human beings? We do make mistakes, alot of them even though we do something we know. Pointless question

No not pointless if they were warned about the dangers.
No not pointless when there are lives at stake.
Thats gross negligence.