Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Ove38

This is really silly, you know how they did it.

Hey look, one massive light source!
Make the sky red, and you can fool people its Mars.

reply to post by FoosM

But, if you think Apollo 11 has 2 hours of live unbroken video, I would like to see it.
Post here:

02e5a89.netsolstores.com...

Maybe Jarrah will let you borrow his copy.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by FoosM

 

are you following the thread ?

A/Prof Alexander Nemchin
BSc, MSc (St Petersburg) PhD (Curtin)
Tel: +61 (0)8 9266 2445
Fax: +61 (0)8 9266 3153
Room: 312-205
[email protected]

don't punk out. this is a direct challenge

put up or shut up

I think you were already challenged.

Did Professor Alexander Nemchin
*see* and *test* all the lunar material that was brought back?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But, if you think Apollo 11 has 2 hours of live unbroken video, I would like to see it.
Post here:

02e5a89.netsolstores.com...

Maybe Jarrah will let you borrow his copy.

Wow DJ, admit defeat already.

reply to post by FoosM

Wow DJ, admit defeat already.

I already have; there is no amount of evidence that will persuade Jarrah's brainwashed minions that he is anything but a genius.

reply to post by FoosM

Did Professor Alexander Nemchin
*see* and *test* all the lunar material that was brought back?

Remember the Moon Hoaxers' standards of evidence: unless they have personally witnessed every single tiny detail of absolutely everything, it must necessarily be false. (Unless of course Bill Kaysing got it from a friend of a friend, in which case it must be true.)

reply to post by FoosM

Hey look, one massive light source!

And nice, soft edges with more distant objects gradually turning softer and bluer.

reply to post by Ove38

This is really silly, you know how they did it.

I thought they did it by building the sets on an angle.

Originally posted by FoosM
Because you said LIVE.
I dont know how that answers your question,
but you made that assertion and thats what I was pointing out.
Film is not LIVE.

No kidding... I'm well aware that the clip that was being discussed was 16mm DAC film and I never said it was live. But OVE made the claim that it was all done in the desert. I was asking how that would have been done for all the formats (live video, 16mm film, 70mm film). Do you understand now?

A. There are deserts on this planet without any visible vegetation.
B. They could have made an artificial location. See our posts on the USGS.

Are any of them an exact match to locations on the Moon? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

C. If you think they could land men on the moon in the 1960's, what makes you think their post processing techniques weren't advanced?

I fail to see how technology for going to the Moon relates to post-processing video and film.

But, if you think Apollo 11 has 2 hours of live unbroken video, I would like to see it.
Post here:

You can go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and watch the entire Apollo 11 EVA. The have it broken up in small parts due to bandwidth reasons, but there is nothing stopping you from downloading all the parts and putting them back together. Or you can buy the DVD sets from spacecraft films.

And there is no live video during any of the traverses in the LRV in the later missions. They had to turn off the live video while moving. Only during the stops at the various geology stations would the live video be on.

reply to post by FoosM


Is this a case of blowing the whistle??

reply to post by jra

They had to turn off the live video while moving.

Obviously, because the live TV signal required the unidirectional antenna, in order to transmit the signals

Yes?

reply to post by FoosM


Think about this FoosM,

Harrison Schmitt- the geologist who walked on the moon (Apollo 17)- does not agree with Nemchin -the geologist who never walked on the moon- about one crucial detail : how the moon was formed.

Schmitt believes the moon is a "captured planet".
Nemchin believes the moon is the result of a "giant impact" and the moon separated from Earth.

Who is the more credible scientist?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What a cheap shot!

I agree, you've been doing nothing but taking cheap shots by posting huge frame-grabs in order to "fast forward" the thread past points you cannot defend. Pathetic.

You mad because NASA didn't respond to you about the press conferences?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Harrison Schmitt- the geologist who walked on the moon (Apollo 17)- does not agree with Nemchin -the geologist who never walked on the moon- about one crucial detail : how the moon was formed.

Was Harrison Schmitt walking on the surface of the Moon when it was formed?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by FoosM

 

are you following the thread ?

A/Prof Alexander Nemchin
BSc, MSc (St Petersburg) PhD (Curtin)
Tel: +61 (0)8 9266 2445
Fax: +61 (0)8 9266 3153
Room: 312-205
[email protected]

don't punk out. this is a direct challenge

put up or shut up

I think you were already challenged.

Did Professor Alexander Nemchin
*see* and *test* all the lunar material that was brought back?

that was really really weak and the worst part is you know it !

you know full well 1 apollo moon rock proves the case and ends the debate

I knew you didn't have it in you

from now on, don't even bring up the rocks, because you don't have the guts to look behind the curtain and see for yourself what is there

no guts at all

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Think about this FoosM,

Harrison Schmitt- the geologist who walked on the moon (Apollo 17)- does not agree with Nemchin -the geologist who never walked on the moon- about one crucial detail : how the moon was formed.

Schmitt believes the moon is a "captured planet".
Nemchin believes the moon is the result of a "giant impact" and the moon separated from Earth.

Who is the more credible scientist?

credibility isn't the issue, and neither is how the moon was formed. does schmitt dispute the lunar samples are from the moon ?

THAT would be a crucial detail

foos has no stones, will YOU contact Nemchin ?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter



It really doesn't matter much when scientists in a particular field of expertise happen to disagree on certain theories, even as major as the genesis of the Moon.

Frankly, the point is moot as it relates to Apollo, so why mention it??

Of course, Dr. Schmitt may not have the exact same level of science knowledge, that is needed to properly study the Lunar samples. He is at most an Earth geologist, who was given a crash-course in Lunar *selenology* before the Apollo 17 mission. His experience, though, was useful on the mission, to spot very interesting samples, for those who would spend the many following decades really studying them.

However, specialization is required, and obtained, by those who devote their entire careers to focus on one specific aspect of the field they have chosen to work in.

Hopefully you understand the concept of specialization?? If you need a heart transplant, do you trot down to the local neurosurgeon?? Both are highly, highly trained Medical Doctors, right? Been to school, graduated, all that.

So, if you don't choose the neurosurgeon to perform your heart transplant, then why not? What if I told you he/she graduated top of his/her MD University....what, you still prefer the heart specialist? Any particular reason?


As to Harrison Schmitt....he is more an entrepreneur, nowadays. He's excited about the potential of returns to the Moon, not only for the continuing science, but because of the ("potential") for profit, via private enterprise.

Buy his book he'd like that:

www.amazon.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Is this a case of blowing the whistle??

No, it's a case of having some fun:

More Creativity - Fun and Inspiration

The following creations show the fun side of being an Apollo enthusiast. Many of the offerings use Apollo images and scenes as a basis, but with unexpected additions. Some show members of the ALSJ/AFJ team having Apollo-like adventures here on Planet Earth. And still other offerings make use of Apollo material for various artistic purposes. Enjoy!

...

19 July 2007

David Harland returns to the ever-popular theme of the Lunar Grand Prix ( 1.1 Mb ).

www.hq.nasa.gov...



You might also enjoy these, from the same source:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by FoosM

 

are you following the thread ?

A/Prof Alexander Nemchin
BSc, MSc (St Petersburg) PhD (Curtin)
Tel: +61 (0)8 9266 2445
Fax: +61 (0)8 9266 3153
Room: 312-205
[email protected]

don't punk out. this is a direct challenge

put up or shut up

I think you were already challenged.

Did Professor Alexander Nemchin
*see* and *test* all the lunar material that was brought back?

that was really really weak and the worst part is you know it !

you know full well 1 apollo moon rock proves the case and ends the debate

Bzzzz!
Wrong answer.
Thanks for trying though.

Originally posted by ProudBird

So, if you don't choose the neurosurgeon to perform your heart transplant, then why not? He graduated top of his MD classes....what, you still prefer the heart specialist? Any particular reason?

Boy that was a convoluted response.
And in the end you contradicted yourself.