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: 54
377
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ppk55
 


Wow thats funny he really has no clue about chemistry and thinks his room in his house recreates a lunar atmosphere.
Theres a reason Myth Busters did this experiment in a vacuum. The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds are created. The new bonds enable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water.


So just to be clear, you are saying that a layer of lunar dust becomes oxidized and weathered during Jarrah White's experiment? Is that correct?

Edit - I need to point out an important correction. You claim Jarrah White believed he was re-creating a lunar atmosphere. In the video he very clearly stated he made no attempt whatsoever at re-creating the lunar atmosphere.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by truthquest]




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   




You see, that is why so many of us chafe at this agrumentum ad youtubum. Nobody puts into words what is allegedly being demonstrated in the video. There is no narrative, no explanation, no supporting links. Someone just comes along, squats, and takes a giant dump on the thread with yet another piece of excrement from JW or Sibrel.

If you want to make an point, MAKE IT. Don't depend on someone else to do it for you.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
1969:


Von Braun had the first manned Mars mission departing Earth orbit during the minimum-energy Earth-Mars transfer opportunity in 1981. Each Mars mission would employ two identical six-man spacecraft comprising at Earth-orbit departure three Nuclear Shuttles and a Mission Module. An unpressurized forward compartment would house the two-stage conical MEM, an airlock for spacewalks, six Mars Sample Return Probes, and two Venus probes. The compartment would measure 33 feet in diameter while the MEM would measure 30 feet across its bowl-shaped heat shield.


2010:


NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. said told a Senate Science subcommittee that he and the White House agreed with the goal of reaching Mars is "the ultimate destination." But Bolden said he couldn't set a date for that goal because research funded in the budget needs to find better propulsion and research longer-term space travel on people.

"We want to go to Mars," Bolden said. "We can't get there because we don't have the technology."


1969:


Von Braun promised the STG that "Man's first step on Mars will be no less exciting than Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon." Apollo 11 commander Armstrong had set foot on the moon just two weeks before von Braun's STG pitch (July 20, 1969). The timing of his presentation was not accidental; NASA Administrator Thomas Paine sought to exploit the excitement Apollo 11 had generated to obtain the STG's endorsement of a manned Mars program in its report to Nixon.


2010:


"We were living a hallucination," said Bolden, who said "vision without resources is a hallucination."





jra

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm not sure I understand the point you're attempting to make in your last post. Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to get at with these quotes? Also some sources for that quoted material would be nice. Thanks.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Thx FoosM~!! Awesome vid~!! yea.. and if those that can't interpret the YT .. LMAO .. wow.. !!! just wow.. !!!

2nd line this in the preview it's only a 1 liner..
)



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm not sure I understand the point you're attempting to make in your last post. Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to get at with these quotes? Also some sources for that quoted material would be nice. Thanks.


If I were FoosM, I wouldn't even reply LOL.. but, I suggest you keep reading the quotes OVER & OVER & OVER.. then you be enlightened .. because it's staring at you in the face !!!!

oh and.. you can find the source links your self.. :0 I did.. took about 1 min.. you know.. just gotta Google it..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


The point seems to be that von Braun, with his characteristic political savvy, was lobbying congress to appropriate funds for a Mars mission while the country was basking in the glow of the successful lunar landing. He was confident that the technology for such a mission could be researched and developed in twenty years. Since the funding was not approved, NASA has been unable to develop that technology. So these quotes affirm the fact of the lunar landing, the need for twenty years of research to develop true interplanetary manned spacefaring and the political failure of will to do so. It further affirms that Apollo was not hoaxed, because it would have been just as "cheap and easy" to fake a Mars landing. Maybe even easier. Is that what you got, too?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


I think if you look at mythbusters they used a vacuum and the lever system they used would be more accurate to 1/6 gravity than RICHARD HEAD (DICK TO HIS MATES) stamping his foot in earth gravity and NO VACUUM



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Some explanation of what you are getting out of those quotes would be useful. What do you think they mean?

Simply quoting something without commentary does nothing for the conversation.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


I think if you look at mythbusters they used a vacuum and the lever system they used would be more accurate to 1/6 gravity than RICHARD HEAD (DICK TO HIS MATES) stamping his foot in earth gravity and NO VACUUM


You rightly point out that Jarrah White's boot stomp was a bad move. It was probably done because he was trying to create the strongest possible print, with the logic being the harder you press, the more crisp the print would be. So that actually made some sense. In snowy slush, I've done the exact same thing and the result was a crisp and clear icy slush print that looked just like the bottom of my shoe. Therefore, Jarrah White's boot stomp wasn't entirely stupid.

From my perspective a boot stomp is preferable to a lever stomp given a goal of trying to create a strong boot print. With a lever stomp you are not producing a natural footprint whereas with a boot stomp you are producing a natural footprint with a cleaner "flow". But again, both are no good if you are not going to apply the right amount of pressure to the dust sample.

Jarrah White brought up another good point. The boot print from the NASA photo was in fact much more crisp and clear than the Mythbusters boot print. Therefore, that shows either that their experiment was not done well or that the whole man on moon thing was a hoax. Which one do you think? I'll tell you what I think... the Mythbusters experiment was bad and the moon landing may have been a hoax (though I doubt it).

People are pretending their are two hardcore camps - the Mythbusters camp and the Jarrah White camp. Its ridiculous. Both are right and wrong about different things. Both camps make "stupid" mistakes. Both offer bad experiments because they both come from biased positions. The way the Mythbusters crew celebrated their result showed they were in a biased position and should not have been doing the experiment in the first place without finding key pro-hoax people who agreed to accept the results of the experiment given their test conditions.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I have by-passed this thread for quite some time, until I saw today that it was still active and growing.

Jarrah White is a fraud.
Why Jarrah White is Wrong About Apollo

Just GooGle him and you will see the extent to which he has been debunked over the last few years.
(Those hits that are not debunkers are merely fans and believers, there are no credible FACTUAL/SCIENTIFIC supporters)

Speculating that because there exist "high levels" of neutron radiation on the moon, it must therefore be lethal, means absolutely nothing without quantifying exposure.

That is fallacious in and of itself.

One could say that sulfur dioxide is lethal, and that there are "high levels" of sulfur dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, therefore life on Earth is a hoax.

The same can be said for dozens of other molecules or elements, some of which are ESSENTIAL to life in limited amounts, but deadly at others.

Without quantities, mere presence means nothing.

I am so glad I was able to avoid getting caught up in the circular reasoning, denials supported only because "I believe," "there could be," or "no one knows." Faulty "comparisons" are specious.

What a ridiculous waste of time and bandwidth.

deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 18-5-2010 by jdub297]


jra

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
If I were FoosM, I wouldn't even reply LOL.. but, I suggest you keep reading the quotes OVER & OVER & OVER.. then you be enlightened .. because it's staring at you in the face !!!!


So it's too much to ask for some one to give there own opinion in a discussion?


I think I can see what FoosM might be trying to imply, but I'd rather he/she just come out and say what they think, rather than have to guess at it.


oh and.. you can find the source links your self.. :0 I did.. took about 1 min.. you know.. just gotta Google it..


Yes I googled it obviously. But it's generally considered common courtesy to supply links to what you're quoting.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

It's not only common courtesy. It's the law.

Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the QUOTE BOX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 5/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I've seen enough. Reporting to mods for [hoax] tag. Not only is the title misleading but this stuff has been more then debunked here.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 


The point seems to be that von Braun, with his characteristic political savvy, was lobbying congress to appropriate funds for a Mars mission while the country was basking in the glow of the successful lunar landing. He was confident that the technology for such a mission could be researched and developed in twenty years. Since the funding was not approved, NASA has been unable to develop that technology. So these quotes affirm the fact of the lunar landing, the need for twenty years of research to develop true interplanetary manned spacefaring and the political failure of will to do so. It further affirms that Apollo was not hoaxed, because it would have been just as "cheap and easy" to fake a Mars landing. Maybe even easier. Is that what you got, too?



Within 12 years.

Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:

Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Within 12 years.

Another way you can look at it is that von Braun didnt get what he wanted, and tried to pitch for more money to realize his dream. But knowing how impossible a trip to the moon was, the powers that be simply kept using Apollo as a cover for militarizing space:

Corona
Mol
women astronauts
and who knows what else
www.geog.ucsb.edu...


Heh, and here you spent post after post earlier in the thread telling us that they brought von Braun into NASA explicitly for the purpose of "militarizing space", only to find out later he only wanted to go to Mars.

But then again, consistency was never one of your strong points....



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
I have by-passed this thread for quite some time, until I saw today that it was still active and growing.

Jarrah White is a fraud.
Why Jarrah White is Wrong About Apollo


It doesn't matter whether Jarrah White is a fraud because all of his work is independently verifiable. What matters if whether he raises any good points (whether they are correct or incorrect). So, instead of Jarrah White's intentions and motivations its even easier to evaluate each claim based on its merits to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.

Its almost laughable you have to use terms like "fraud" when "incorrect" would make so much more sense, but thats well beyond the point, because again, it doesn't matter so much what labels you're going to use as it matters whether you are addressing the claims or not. Most of the current postings on the anti-moonkfaker "side of the fence" (as if you couldn't be in the middle like I am) are all about hating on Jarrah White and not addressing his claims individually.

Your link sadly doesn't jump to any points but states that shuttles have radiation meters. Okay, well that does nothing to disprove anything. Maybe they are all reading 1,500 rem or so? And why should I trust their radiation meters more than the Van Allen radiation meters? Van Allen is the guy who discovered the Van Allen belt and from what I understand they had very crispy readouts.

I don't care if we're 50 pages into the debate. That only means it is more important than ever to address only the evidence and ignore the personalities and characters involved in the argument.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest


It doesn't matter whether Jarrah White is a fraud because all of his work is independently verifiable. What matters if whether he raises any good points (whether they are correct or incorrect). So, instead of Jarrah White's intentions and motivations its even easier to evaluate each claim based on its merits to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.


Great. Let's start then with one of these "independently verifiable" claims. If you would give us one, with the verification. We can see who is right and who is wrong.



Your link sadly doesn't jump to any points but states that shuttles have radiation meters. Okay, well that does nothing to disprove anything. Maybe they are all reading 1,500 rem or so?


Maybe? All dosimeter readings for Apollo are available.


And why should I trust their radiation meters more than the Van Allen radiation meters? Van Allen is the guy who discovered the Van Allen belt and from what I understand they had very crispy readouts.


What did these "readouts" say specfically? Where in the belts were these "crispy" readouts? How does the trajectory of the Apollo launches relate to the belts? And "the guy" who discovered the VA belts specifically states there would be no problem passing through the belts as Apollo did.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Forgive me i did not read all 54 pages but is it not possible that...
They Did go to the moon, found stuff that they didn't think that the general populace should see e.g structures and evidence of previous or current occupation of the moon.

Then decided on earth to Create a moon landing that suited what they think should be on the moon. "nothing"

It ties in with some of the radio conversations about the astronauts seeing stuff.

So it would make the moon landing footage fake, but they did go to the moon!!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GallopingFish
Forgive me i did not read all 54 pages but is it not possible that...
They Did go to the moon, found stuff that they didn't think that the general populace should see e.g structures and evidence of previous or current occupation of the moon.

Then decided on earth to Create a moon landing that suited what they think should be on the moon. "nothing"

It ties in with some of the radio conversations about the astronauts seeing stuff.

So it would make the moon landing footage fake, but they did go to the moon!!



That would be impossible considering the video was beamed live from the surface of the moon for each mission. When would they have had the time to make up the fake video if they just discovered the structures when they got to the moon?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join