Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...

Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"

If the Apollo sites don't really exist and they want to keep future explorers away, then why are the "Keepout zones" only for Apollo 11 and 17? And not for Apollo's 12 - 16? Why are the zones so small (75m for A11 and 200m for A17)? Any future rover (be it private or from another country) will still be able to see the hardware from those distances. Or be able to drive right up to them for the A12 - 16 sites.

You dont get what they are doing do you?
Think about the success rate for landing vehicles on foreign bodies.
Its not good.
Think about the success rates for lunar rovers traveling over the surface of mars or the moon.
Its not good.

Basically by putting any restrictions around their sites, they ensure that teams would not risk sending their probes even remotely close to any landing sites. It wont be worth the effort if it possibly means loosing your craft. So I bet most teams, if not all, will just stay away and look for new sites to discover.
Who would want to bother anyway in re-discovering a part of the moon that supposedly has been thoroughly examined by humans. LOL.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...

Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"

You are actually claiming that Nasa crashed probes that look precisely the same as we see in apollo photos and videos? Tell me how this magical probe then makes the footpaths, leaves the rover at exact place, plants a flag etc.? I really really wanna know this.

No SJ is not saying that.
Though, if we assume that Apollo was an unmanned mission, and that the LM was remote controlled. Its quite possible NASA landed (or crashed) the LMs on the moon.

But I want to address this whole issue with the LRO and seeing footpaths, etc.
I want to draw your attention to the following videos:




You see? Those footprints, materials were all filmed before.
What are the new photos adding that is better than what was shot 40 years ago?
In other words, if the lift off movies are faked, then definitely those pixelized images of the locations are faked.

NEWS FLASH!

Moon rock researchers who studied Apollo Moon Rocks admit that they do not know where these rocks came from.

In the Q&A portion of Barbara Cohen's video presentation starting at 18:30 of the video..

from July 20, 2011

connect.arc.nasa.gov...

Questioner 1:
"Could you say just a little bit about the different methods, just focussing on age dating samples, the different methods and what they are telling us that's different and where we need to be going with either additional analysis.. or... Well you actually made the point at the end, that it's not just dating more samples, it's getting samples where we know the provenance. But talk just a little bit about the dating methods.."

Barbara Cohen:
"We do very well understand many isotopic systems for dating impact materials.." [list of methods]

"All of these samples, all these techniques, tell you something different about the history of the crystallization and the thermal history, of the samples, [???] and so you can bring all of those systems to bear..."

"...We have many samples that are like that .. where we really do understand the crystallization age and the thermal history and when we look at those we really do think we have dated some impact melt rocks very well."

"You can do this for more, all your doing with samples that you don't know where they came from say, a lunar meteorite, all your doing there is building up a statistical flux over the whole moon, and not really tying it to a specific basin.. "

"I'm hoping that the combination of new isotopic methods and better isotopic methods and new geologic mapping maybe we can do a better job relating some of our existing samples to specific structures, conversely we can build up a larger history of the moon statistically or we can go get new samples that we know where they came from. "

Questioner 2:
" Just to continue on with your last point there, that we can get new samples that we know where they came from... "



I typed the transcript myself, you may wish to view the actual video to confirm what I typed.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

"You can do this for more, all your doing with samples that you don't know where they came from say, a lunar meteorite, all your doing there is building up a statistical flux over the whole moon, and not really tying it to a specific basin.. "

What did she mean by lunar meteorite?
A piece of the moon that fell to earth?
Or a meteorite that hit the moon?

reply to post by FoosM


This is one of those times when Never a Straight Answer applies...
In this video there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement amongst the participants here that there is on open issue with regard to the 'provenance' of Moon rocks samples which have been so exhaustively studied here on Earth.

" ...provenance... that we know where they came from... "

It would be nice to know what they were talking about behind the scenes!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

This is one of those times when Never a Straight Answer applies...

In this video there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement amongst the participants here that there is on open issue with regard to the 'provenance' of Moon rocks samples which have been so exhaustively studied here on Earth.

" ...provenance... that we know where they came from... "

It would be nice to know what they were talking about behind the scenes!

I wonder if NASA has used the Shuttle as a distraction from Apollo. That there simply was no time for new engineers, scientists, astronauts to really take a deep long look at Apollo because they were so focused on the task of the day. The Shuttle missions. The rest of NASA was diverted to sending probes to Mars.

Now, it looks like the new guard of NASA, tasked with returning men to the moon, are looking at the heritage of Apollo for the first time and are saying 'WTF is this $#!T?'

Their long held paradigms regarding Apollo are starting to conflict with their own science and research.
We might be seeing a paradigm shift here. But I dont expect full disclosure until the last Apollo astronaut have passed on to the other side. The weight of facing their family, friends and fans would be unfair, for all the decades they have been Carrying the Fire

reply to post by FoosM


Basically they are referring to meteorites that were found on the moon.

They also don't know where the samples came from - were they chipped off a massive formation or scooped out from the lurain.

I don't think those people would risk their careers by suggestion the rocks weren't brought back from the moon.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Basically they are referring to meteorites that were found on the moon.

They also don't know where the samples came from - were they chipped off a massive formation or scooped out from the lurain.

Correct, have a star!

reply to post by FoosM


He made that exact claim. He claimed that these zones are put in place to protect the crashed probes that were used to fake apollo. Not taking into account that the proposed limits would allow anyone to get close enough to get high detail photos of the sites. If nasa was to protect the propsed hoax by these zones those probes would look exactly like the photographs and videos from the mission. If they wouldn't the foul play would be revealed. So he did infact make that exact claim.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

I don't think those people would risk their careers by suggestion the rocks weren't brought back from the moon.

That is at the heart of the issue.
But obviously people are making statements that can be interpreted in that fashion.
I mean, I thought all the lunar samples were well catalogued. This included using photos
to show where they got the samples from. Like Big Muley, the orange soil, etc.
So how can one say they are not sure where the samples come from?

reply to post by FoosM


Barbara Cohen's official presentation doesn't go into detail about the issues of provenance for existing samples however she is leading some R&D for new lunar sample return missions. The open issue about the "provenance" of the samples came up during her Q&A.

The questions of provenance in existing lunar sample return material means that Apollo Moon Rocks™ are not the "rock hard evidence" which the Apollo cheerleaders have made them out to be.

Now, when the Apollogist crowd uses Apollo Moon Rocks™ as proof for NASA's claims about Apollo, modern skeptics will have a valid response to them which is this : to address the questions of provenance in the catalogues of existing lunar sample return material.

Originally posted by FoosMTheir long held paradigms regarding Apollo are starting to conflict with their own science and research.
We might be seeing a paradigm shift here. But I dont expect full disclosure until the last Apollo astronaut have passed on to the other side. The weight of facing their family, friends and fans would be unfair, for all the decades they have been Carrying the Fire

There is a way for the astros to get out of jail free and still look like the heroes.

They can disclose everything they saw and did up there....

They will have a perfect opportunity to do so this week. I hope that Buzz will talk again about that "thing" on Phobos!!!!!!!!!!

Full Committee Hearing- NASA Human Spaceflight
2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | 09/22/2011 - 10:00am - 12:00pm
NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go From Here?

Witnesses
Mr. Neil A. Armstrong, Commander, Apollo 11
Captain Eugene A. Cernan USN (ret.), Commander, Apollo 17
Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. Maria Zuber, E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I hope that Buzz will talk again about that "thing" on Phobos!!!!!!!!!!

You mean like what he said to Alex Jones (of all people)? At 5:30. Seems like he said it all.

"It's a big, big, tall rock. Now I could say it looks like maybe a crude construction device by some creatures who practiced on Phobos and then landed in Egypt and built the pyramids. I don't really believe that. But some people are liable to think that".

Editorial Correction: Looks like I was going way too fast this morning and mixed up Buzz with Neil... my bad. I mentioned "Buzz" but it's actually Neil Armstrong & Gene Cernan going to Capitol Hill this week.

These guys are ostensibly going to Washington to sell the next big boondoggles - SLS/MPCV. Nevertheless, if Neil would take this moment of opportunity to e x p a n d on his cryptic statement regarding "truth's protective layers" it would be very enlightening to the public. FULL DISCLOSURE.

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont get what they are doing do you?

I guess not, but I'm sure you have some solid evidence that shows what they're really up to...

Think about the success rate for landing vehicles on foreign bodies.
Its not good.

Actually it's not that bad. A lot of the failures were from the rockets launching the would-be landers, and not the landers themselves. So if we're talking about the success rate for a vehicle landing on a foreign body. I think it would be fair to include only the failures where the lander itself failed and not the launch vehicle.

So the numbers for failed landers vs successful landers for both the Moon and Mars are:
14 failed, 19 successful

Hardly what I'd call "not good".

Think about the success rates for lunar rovers traveling over the surface of mars or the moon.
Its not good.

Again, it's not that bad. Here are the numbers for rovers.
1 failed, 5 successful

That seems pretty good to me.

Basically by putting any restrictions around their sites, they ensure that teams would not risk sending their probes even remotely close to any landing sites. It wont be worth the effort if it possibly means loosing your craft.

Why would one loose there craft? I don't understand what you mean by that. And what risk is there in going near the Apollo sites? Only Apollo 11 and 17 have the buffer zones. The rest do not.

So I bet most teams, if not all, will just stay away and look for new sites to discover.
Who would want to bother anyway in re-discovering a part of the moon that supposedly has been thoroughly examined by humans. LOL.

I wouldn't say that the Apollo sites have been thoroughly examined. They only just scratched the surface so to speak. Plus there is some value in examining the leftover hardware to see how well the various materials have been holding up for the past 40 years.

We'll just have to wait and see if any teams from the Google Lunar X Prize choose to land near any of the sites.

Originally posted by jra


Why would one loose there craft? I don't understand what you mean by that. And what risk is there in going near the Apollo sites? Only Apollo 11 and 17 have the buffer zones. The rest do not.

The others also have no fly zones, Apollo 11 and 17 are simply more defined.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
You dont get what they are doing do you?

I guess not, but I'm sure you have some solid evidence that shows what they're really up to...

Think about the success rate for landing vehicles on foreign bodies.
Its not good.

Actually it's not that bad. A lot of the failures were from the rockets launching the would-be landers, and not the landers themselves. So if we're talking about the success rate for a vehicle landing on a foreign body. I think it would be fair to include only the failures where the lander itself failed and not the launch vehicle.

So the numbers for failed landers vs successful landers for both the Moon and Mars are:
14 failed, 19 successful

Are you focusing on early attempts or all attempts?
In other words, I would expect better results over time, after many attempts.

These are the first attempts for third parties. We can expect their success rate will not be as good with their first flights compared to their later flights.

Originally posted by FoosM
Are you focusing on early attempts or all attempts?
In other words, I would expect better results over time, after many attempts.

All attempts of course, and from all the Countries that have sent Landers and Rovers, not just the US. I wrote out a list in chronological order and yes, you can see that the results get better over time.

He's gone out of this world, but is she out of his league?

The New York Post reported that the 81-year-old ex-astronaut is making another giant leap for mankind, dating a woman 30 years his junior.

He started dating Michelle Sucillon, 51, in June, on the heels of Aldrin filing for divorce from his third wife.
The two were spotted 'making out like teenagers' aboard an Acela train over the weekend.

His ex-wife, Lois Driggs Cannon, told the Post that she thinks Sucillon is a 'predator.'

She added, ‘I would hope we get back together... but I can’t tell him what to do. I think most wives warn their husbands of predatory women.'

Mr Aldrin filed for divorced his third wife, Lois Driggs Cannon, in June after 23 years of marriage.

In the petition, 'irreconcilable differences' is cited as the reason for the dissolution.

The couple tied the knot on Valentine's Day in 1988 but have no children together.

Days after he filed for divorce, Cannon and her daughter sued the former astronaut over Starbuzz, the promo business the three own, ETOnline.com reported.

the astronaut fought alcoholism and depression as he was thrust into the limelight after his mission to the moon in 1969.

He has since said that overcoming depression and alcohol was one of the hardest challenges of his life.

Why would someone crack like that?
Supposedly these astronauts were chosen for their ability to handle stress, etc.
But this guy just cracks right after Apollo.
Just cracks.

He admitted in Magnificent Desolation and another memoir, Return To Earth, that he had suffered from clinical depression and battled alcoholism after leaving NASA.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Buzz Aldrin, 81, filed for divorce from his 81-year-old wife in June, citing irreconcilable differences. Just five days later, the company Aldrin shares with his wife and stepdaughter sued Aldrin for breach of contract. The wife and stepdaughter claim Aldrin is trying to cut them out of the family-run business, but the family-run business is Buzz Aldrin.
Aldrin has since filed a countersuit against Starbuzz, claiming he was tricked into signing away legal rights to his name and image. Starbuzz is owned 35 percent by Aldrin, 35 percent by his wife, and 30 percent by the stepdaughter. Starbuzz LLC was founded in 2007, and the women argue they created the Buzz Aldrin brand, dating back to the beginning of the marriage. They point out that before the formation of Starbuzz, there was a similar entity called Starcraft which also worked at developing the brand.

So Buzz Aldrin is a brand.
You think he is about to tell the public he didnt land or walk on the moon?
Talk about your lawsuits.




www.phoenixazdivorceattorney.com...