Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 560
377
<< 557  558  559    561  562  563 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


So... you can't post a photo of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit. Fail.



The space.com illustration is misleading to the casual observer because it contains :

1. A graphic representation of the sectionalized moon.
2. Elementary facts such as the temperature and diameter of the moon.
3. A human slam dunk comparison without any other weight considerations.
4. The 60 ft slam dunk is placed within the context of the moon landings.
5. The 60 ft slam dunk has no relation to the other content of the piece titled "Inside Earth's Moon".
6. The photo of Apollo 15's James Irwin suited up, allegedly taken on the moon, next to an American flag.
7. Pinpoint of the Apollo 11 landing site.
8. And the space.com logo.

My conclusion :

This is propaganda of the type which is called "cognitive disinformation" where a casual observer will view 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, then draws an incorrect conclusion (or several incorrect conclusions) from the lay out of the graphic which was intentionally designed by space.com.

It's a really cheap piece of disinfo but it's also a *PERFECT* example of how disinfo is used all the time by the agents of NASA to perpetuate the myth of Apollo.

edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add graphic again for convenience
edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add #8
edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: typo, last edit i promise




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Please post a photograph of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit.
Arbitrary second line.


Why do you ask me for something which YOU KNOW does not exist? Perhaps you were dumbfounded by the stupidity of illustration? Well, it happens to the best of us DJ!
edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: sp



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




This is propaganda of the type which is called "cognitive disinformation" where a casual observer will view 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, then draws an incorrect conclusion (or several incorrect conclusions) from the lay out of the graphic which was intentionally designed by space.com.

It's a really cheap piece of disinfo but it's also a *PERFECT* example of how disinfo is used all the time by the agents of NASA to perpetuate the myth of Apollo.


Surprise, for a moment there I thought you were going to conclude that it was a bit of hackneyed piecework by the graphic artist Karl Tate. Here are more examples of his visual style. Would you care to explain the propaganda techniques that he and his evil space.com masters are using here:

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

www.space.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Now you do the same thing you complain about FoosM. Distracting, dissembling and distorting. DJ please offer your explaination as to why a 60 ft slam dunk was necessary to include on the space.com illustration. And why was a photo of James Irwin necessary to include on an illustration titled "Inside Earth's Moon". The picture of James Irwin has nothing to do with the interior of the moon. The pinpoint of the Apollo 11 landing spot has nothing to do with the interior of the moon. None of these things have anything to do with the "Inside Earth's Moon".

NEXT!

Next week NASA is sending 2 more probes to the moon.

www.space.com...


"GRAIL will unlock lunar mysteries and help us understand how the moon, Earth and other rocky planets evolved as well," said GRAIL principal investigator Maria Zuber of MIT in a statement.


GRAIL will have

Up to five cameras aboard each spacecraft will allow students and the public to participate in GRAIL’s mission of lunar exploration. Each GRAIL spacecraft will carry the cameras to document their views from lunar orbits.


GRAIL will also

The orbiter also will look for potential lunar resources and document aspects of the lunar radiation environment.


GRAIL is a pitifully short mission

The 90-day Science Phase is divided into three 27.3-day nadir-pointed mapping cycles. Two daily 8-hour DSN tracking passes acquire the science and "E/PO MoonKam" data.

Following the Science Phase (or extended mission phase), a 5-day decommissioning period is planned, after which the spacecraft will impact the lunar surface in ~40 days.
Source moon.mit.edu...

More "GOVERNMENT JUNK" crashed into the moon!!!
edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: sp
edit on 9/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: going to see Apollo 18 tonight!



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Now you do the same thing you complain about FoosM. Distracting, dissembling and distorting. DJ please offer your explaination as to why a 60 ft slam dunk was necessary to include on the space.com illustration. And why was a photo of James Irwin necessary to include on an illustration titled "Inside Earth's Moon". The picture of James Irwin has nothing to do with the interior of the moon. The pinpoint of the Apollo 11 landing spot has nothing to do with the interior of the moon. None of these things have anything to do with the "Inside Earth's Moon".


Now you are the one using diversionary tactics. I posted links to the source of that illustration, which you did not. If you examine Karl Tate's other work, you will note that it tends to be cluttered, with short texts in oversized fonts. He seems to abhor "negative space" in his work, and crams sometimes irrelevant graphics and text to fill it up, precisely in the manner of the old "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" comic strips. Space.com seems to be geared towards High School kids. If it has an agenda, it is to inspire them to study science, or at least think that science is "cool." (To bring this back on topic, this seems to be the opposite agenda to Jarrah White's. Jarrah wants science to look intimidating, and scientists themselves "un-cool.")

The reason you are attempting to change the subject, of course is because even if one accepts your opinion that the cartoon in question was indeed intended as propaganda of some sort, that does not in any way imply that the Moon Landings never happened! Propaganda often uses true facts or historical events in order to persuade. In fact, propaganda needs to have some foundation in reality or it cannot be successful. Just because the US government is fond of reminding everyone that it won World War Two doesn't automatically mean that they lost World War Two, or even, that World War Two never happened! They use this historical fact in a fashion designed to intimidate their enemies and make their allies feel less important. Yes, it is used for propaganda purposes and "spun" accordingly, but the fact of the matter is... it is an historical fact.
edit on 3-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

As usual, one has to wonder why, if it was faked, did they not try to make it look like what people were expecting?


NASA simply Jumped the Shark


especially with the last three missions.
Its that simple.


Jumping the shark is an idiom, first employed to describe a moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery.
In its initial usage, it referred to the point in a television program's history where it has "outlived its freshness" [1] where viewers feel "the writers have run out of ideas" and that "the series has [lost] what made it attractive."[2] These changes were often the result of efforts to revive interest in a show whose audience had begun to decline.[3]

The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment in its evolution when a brand, design, or creative effort moves beyond the essential qualities that initially defined its success, beyond relevance or recovery.



Jones - "That is a beautiful piece of theater.


www.hq.nasa.gov...


What can you tell me about the origins of the experiment?"
Scott - "The basic idea was Joe Allen's. It was another thing from sitting in the crew quarters at night, trying to figure out interesting things to do - that were useful, too. And I guess we had a lot of ideas. But Joe came up with the hammer and feather idea, and we decided where to get a feather. I had a friend who was a professor at the Air Force Academy. Their mascot's the Falcon. And we had the (LM) Falcon. So that was indeed, a falcon feather from an Air Force Academy bird. In fact, I had two of them. I was going to try it, first, to see if it worked - because of static charge and all that stuff it might have stuck to my glove. Didn't have time (for the trial run), so we just winged it. And it worked!

The accompanying photo shows Al Worden (left), Dave Scott, and Jim Irwin at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs with one of the Academy's falcon mascots on Dave's gloved arm.

Jones - "Brought the feather out in the ETB?"

Scott - "No, I think the feather was in my pocket. I think I had two feathers in my pocket. I don't even know where the other feather is. That one we just left there."

Think about it, Scott took out a feather out of his pocket with his pressurized gloves.

Dave had four readily available pockets: one on each sleeve just below the shoulder ( 150k ) and one strapped to each thigh ( 219k ).

Jones - "So the feather's just sitting there, some ways away from the Descent Stage because of the launch exhaust."

Scott - "It was a fun little trick."

Jones - "Agreed. Actually, it's one of the great moments of Apollo."

Scott - "I think a lot of kids still see this in school. When I was at Edwards (after leaving the Astronaut Corps), some company came out there and filmed me dropping a hammer and a feather on the lake bed. To show the difference. And, of course, the feather floats down, because of the air. I don't know where that went, either. Some production outfit went to a lot of effort to do that. It is an interesting demonstration for the kids, on the effects of gravity and the air."

"There were a lot of ideas on what do you do to have a zinger. Shepard hit a golf ball. Purportedly hit a golf ball. Was it on the TV?"



Jones - "Yeah, it is. But it didn't go miles and miles. It went about as far as the javelin. Ed showed a picture to me that shows both the javelin and one of the golf balls in a crater not too terribly far away."

Oh so that was a lie...

Scott - "Well, he hit it, and that's what counts. Everybody tries to do a little something to have a little levity. Doesn't cost anybody anything and it's a nice visual image."

Jones - "Yours was a class act."

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Space.com seems to be geared towards High School kids.

Prime period for brainwashing...
Wouldnt you say?



Jarrah wants science to look intimidating, and scientists themselves "un-cool.")


Proof?




propaganda needs to have some foundation in reality or it cannot be successful.


Is that some form of propaganda for propaganda?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Just like how the astronauts used the Rover to hide their "Olympic Jumps"
they used similar tricks with the "The Hammer & Feather"

The question is, how could the astronauts hold something as thin
as a falcon feather with their pressurized gloves?

history.nasa.gov...

Well we dont get a chance to see it. The astronaut goes offscreen to get the feather.
A feather he claims he got out of his pocket. Its almost like he was saying, "come on guys
help us out here, Im throwing out a BIG clue: FEATHER, POCKET, PRESSURIZED gloves?"

By now most of us should be savvy enough to pick up on these simple camera tricks due to our
over exposure to media, special effects, etc. Much more then say back in the 60's.

If astronauts had the dexterity to handle feathers, then why did they have to
have their Hasselblads modified?


Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves.

www.ehartwell.com...


edit on 4-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
You are actually claiming that Apollo astronauts couldn't move their fingers enough to close their hold? Do you have any evidence or is just made up?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You know I'm out for the truth here so don't be offended bro, but the handling of the feather is not a good point. It required no precision, just the ability to grab.

Regarding the feather: What you should focus on is how they could have made the feather fall so fast in the hammer/feather experiment. If they were using simulated regolith to get certain effects, then they would also likely weigh the feather down to fall at the same rate as the hammer, right?

Anyhow, congrats on the thread. I think it is safe to say that you and the other skeptics are winning this debate.


jra

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The question is, how could the astronauts hold something as thin
as a falcon feather with their pressurized gloves?


I don't get how holding something like a feather would be difficult. You simply take your index finger and thumb and press them together. It isn't rocket science.

Operating and manipulating small levers, locks and dials on a camera is a little more involved, than simply pressing two fingers together to hold something. It makes sense that you'd want the controls on the camera to be bigger and easier to use.

Do you have any evidence that shows the pressurized Apollo gloves are incapable of pressing the fingers together to hold something thin, like a feather?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Yes, well i've just started a thread about going to the moon and building a moon base. Instead of debating it, why don't we just go there ourselves and do it....whos in? follow my lead....


SnF



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Forgive me for not reading through 500+ pages of debating.

Just one quick question:/- If they successfully did land on the moon, why haven't they returned there since?

I mean, it should be easy enough considering they did it early on during the primitive stages of technology, and with all the advances in the past decade for lighter materials and such, I just don't see a reason that they cant go back there.

Unless they never went there in the first place....

Explain?

Fifty years explained in 5 minutes

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-9-2011 by Edgecrusher26 because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edgecrusher26
Just one quick question:/- If they successfully did land on the moon, why haven't they returned there since?


It has to do with a lack of money. NASA doesn't have nearly the same budget it once had in the 60's.

{url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA]Budget of NASA[/url]


I mean, it should be easy enough considering they did it early on during the primitive stages of technology, and with all the advances in the past decade for lighter materials and such, I just don't see a reason that they cant go back there.


Yes, there are better, lighter materials, faster computers, etc. But all the hardware would need to be designed, tested and built from scratch. There are no spaceships that can go to the Moon or land on it currently. There's also 40 year gap in designing and building these types of vehicles, so a lot of new R&D is required to test out new materials and other equipment that wasn't around back in the 60's.

It will require a lot of money to go back to the Moon. Especially if it's done by NASA themselves (with Government contracts). Just look at how much the Constellation program was costing and they barely developed anything. From my understanding, NASA is much more of a bureaucratic mess today, than back in the 60's.

Perhaps when commercial space companies, like SpaceX, have proven themselves to be both reliable and more affordable, then perhaps we'll see a return to the Moon. But for now it just costs too much to do unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


It is odd though..
No man before or since Apollo has left Earths orbit..

Considering how quickly they managed it you'd think they would have continued..



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The question is, how could the astronauts hold something as thin
as a falcon feather with their pressurized gloves?

history.nasa.gov...

Well we dont get a chance to see it. The astronaut goes offscreen to get the feather.
A feather he claims he got out of his pocket. Its almost like he was saying, "come on guys
help us out here, Im throwing out a BIG clue: FEATHER, POCKET, PRESSURIZED gloves?"

By now most of us should be savvy enough to pick up on these simple camera tricks due to our
over exposure to media, special effects, etc. Much more then say back in the 60's.

If astronauts had the dexterity to handle feathers, then why did they have to
have their Hasselblads modified?


Reaching for the "Golden Oldies," again, are we?


Supposedly its difficult to move and hold objects, yet we have seen as astronaut grab hold of a feather and drop it in unison with a hammer.
Strange enough the feather didnt stick to his glove.
How much pressure would he have to exert to keep the feather in place, how tiring to do so?
And what about golfing on the moon?


Page 125!

Thank you for illustrating the Anti-Apollo Propagandists' anti-science bias! Rather than acknowledge the simple fact that all bodies fall at the same rate in a vacuum, the propagandists try to ridicule the demonstration!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Edgecrusher26
Just one quick question:/- If they successfully did land on the moon, why haven't they returned there since?


It has to do with a lack of money. NASA doesn't have nearly the same budget it once had in the 60's.

{url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA]Budget of NASA[/url]


I mean, it should be easy enough considering they did it early on during the primitive stages of technology, and with all the advances in the past decade for lighter materials and such, I just don't see a reason that they cant go back there.


Yes, there are better, lighter materials, faster computers, etc. But all the hardware would need to be designed, tested and built from scratch. There are no spaceships that can go to the Moon or land on it currently. There's also 40 year gap in designing and building these types of vehicles, so a lot of new R&D is required to test out new materials and other equipment that wasn't around back in the 60's.

It will require a lot of money to go back to the Moon. Especially if it's done by NASA themselves (with Government contracts). Just look at how much the Constellation program was costing and they barely developed anything. From my understanding, NASA is much more of a bureaucratic mess today, than back in the 60's.

Perhaps when commercial space companies, like SpaceX, have proven themselves to be both reliable and more affordable, then perhaps we'll see a return to the Moon. But for now it just costs too much to do unfortunately.


Thank you for the info.

I appreciate it.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 

You know I'm out for the truth here so don't be offended bro, but the handling of the feather is not a good point. It required no precision, just the ability to grab.


Constructive criticism is always welcome!
At issue here is that most of us, most likely none of us, including myself, have not had the opportunity to see what its like to hold objects with pressurized gloves. We have some testimony from astronauts and NASA themselves to help us use our imagination to understand the difficulty of handling objects.


Because bulky spacesuit gloves made grasping difficult, tool handles were made thicker than normal.



Duke: “Working in that spacesuit, squeezing those gloves and pressing the tips of our fingers against the ends, caused our fingers to seem like bloody stumps.” The astronauts had to exert pressure all the time to keep the fingers bent when holding an object, or the suit pressure would pop the hand open.


Thats the key point there, it actually takes work to hold any object with pressurize gloves. So no, precision is not the word we are looking at, its dexterity:


Fine motor skills are the coordination of small muscle movements which occur e.g., in the fingers, usually in coordination with the eyes. In application to motor skills of hands (and fingers) the term dexterity is commonly used.


Over time:

...one thing that they couldn't do anything about was the soreness that they began to feel in their forearms. Because the suits were pressurized, the glove fingers were necessarily stiff and hard to move. The engineers had made a good-faith attempt to minimize the problem by designing the gloves with the same shape as the relaxed human hand - that is, with the fingers curved slightly inward. At the very least, it was thought, the design would give the astronauts a chance to relax their fingers from time to time. However, with the fingers in the "relaxed" position, there was an opening of three to four inches between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the index finger. Consequently, if they wanted to grip anything smaller than the opening, they had to close their hands against the internal pressure in the suit. On this second EVA, with tools and other gear to carry, Conrad and Bean had their hands closed almost constantly. In relatively short order, the muscles in their forearms began to ache. They could and did rest their hands from time to time and eventually learned to pace themselves so as to minimize the ache. Still, it was a significant problem and, had their arms not begun to ache so badly, they would have had even greater gains in efficiency.


I want to reiterate that the holding of the feather happened during the close out of EVA 3.
That means Dave spent more time in his pressurized suits than Apollo 12 astros. Are we to believe that holding the feather for a period of time was not a painful chore?


The article concludes with the statement: “Of all their comments and suggestions, there was one thing that the Apollo moonwalkers were emphatic about as the most important spacesuit requirement for future moonwalkers: ‘Better gloves, better gloves, better gloves’.” I based my “Apollo 15 Space Syndrome” [1] characterized by pain and probably oedema of the finger tips, serving as a warning that injuries of the lining of the coronary vessels (endothelium) might exist as well – on the predisposition for arteriolar and venous endothelial injuries of the fingertips, with vasospasm and fluid, trapped distally, from Irwin’s account in his autobiography To Rule the Night [2]. “Both of us now realized with some dismay how much our fingers hurt. The pain was excruciating. We took each other’s gloves off to see what the problem was. The perspiration poured from our gloves. I looked at my nails but couldn’t understand why they were hurting so much; they never hurt on Earth. In the six days since launch the fingernails had grown, and they had been immersed in sweat for the last seven hours. The pressure was on the end of each nail. And our gloves fitted tightly against the end of the fingers so we could have some feel thorough the heavy material. I took my scissors and cut my nails just as far as I could. From then on, on the next EVA, there was no problem at all. I said: Dave, cut your fingernails – that will solve the problem. But Dave would not cut them. He just put up with the pain through the next two EVA. I was really dragging. Tired, exhausted, hungry, thirsty.”


Dave Scott holds this feather for more than 40 seconds!

Google Video Link


www.solarviews.com...
www.honeysucklecreek.net...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.femsinspace.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I want to reiterate that the holding of the feather happened during the close out of EVA 3.
That means Dave spent more time in his pressurized suits than Apollo 12 astros. Are we to believe that holding the feather for a period of time was not a painful chore?


So what you're saying is that you can't believe that a USAF pilot couldn't bear the unendurable pain of holding a feather for 40 seconds. Wow.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Question:
Could Dave have held the feather for more than 40 seconds with no problems?
Could Dave have even held the feather? According to the testimony found in JWs video, actually no.

5:00:


So what are we to do with this information?
When Ralph Rene made his glove box, we could finally see the effects a pressurized
glove would do for a user. It visually supports the testimony made by Lundburg(sp?)



So at this point, I agree with JW.
This glove issue is a big issue when it comes to holding thin, delicate objects like feathers.





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 557  558  559    561  562  563 >>

log in

join