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: 631
377
<< 628  629  630    632  633  634 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Why did you use "moon rock Agnew" as a search term? Just curious.


I was looking through the archives to find out *what head of state* was the first recipient of an Apollo 11 moon rock.. Then I realized that Nixon had delegated that task to VP Agnew in December 1969.

Then I only came up with the first three recipients....
1. Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines
2. Nguyen VanTheiu, South Viet Nam
3. Chiang Kai-shek, Tawain
+134 more heads of state received Apollo 11 moon rocks

I also noted in this article that curator Michael G. Duke bragged that he "knows the disposition of every gram".
However, the article also contains a serious mistake?


In six moon mission, astronauts brought back exactly 382.042 grams (84 pounds) of lunar material, and Duke knows the disposition of every gram."





edit on 10/28/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add pic again for convenience

edit on 10/28/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM


Maybe you are new to this thread.
But I said very early on, I find much of JW's information compelling, however, he does not present strong arguments for all his videos. Some are weak, and highly questionable.

So you must find this argument of his pretty strong to keep harping about it. And after several posts, you have not given your own opinion on it. I think thats what they call flame-baiting or trolling.




Oh you said this earlier on........did you......fair enough I'll give you the benefit of the doubt......but the way you have been "harping on" about Jarrah videos you seem to be suggesting that what ever Jarrah says is better than the experts on the subject.



No, see your thinking wrong. Its prejudiced.
Why I tell people to review JW's claims, is so that a good debate can be had.
Could very well be that JW has made mistakes in his videos.
Or, could very well be his conclusions are solid.
And I'm curious to know.

His videos span many topics, and within each topic he covers various angles, subjects, etc.
I mean it would be silly to assume that some 30 year old from Australia on a shoe-string budget can get it all right all the time. Of course he makes mistakes, of course he might jump to conclusions, of course he might cherry pick his data.

What I dont like is people, like Apollo defenders, coming into this thread, stating they saw a video or two, of usually a multi-part series. And make up their mind about the entire compendium. When in fact, they don't go through the trouble to see what JW's conclusions are, or, if they discover a mistake, if he has made clarifications, or corrections in later videos. I mean, its basically cherry picking to support your worldview.

But other than that, even if half of JW's videos or conclusions are B.S. It means the other half is not.
And by the shear number of topics he has covered, anybody, in their right mind could see there is enough worth investigating the claims of NASA.

So I focus on what I think are topics worth looking into. Radiation is one of them. Challenger is not. But if you came here and said, "You know, JW made some interesting points about NASA's suspect behavior and actions regarding Challenger, but I dont think his conclusions are correct," Im sure many JW supporters would agree with you.

And that goes for Van Allen and radiation, if you came here and claimed, "I watched all of JW's videos on radiation. Here is my list of pros and cons," then I think a normal discussion can be had.

Here are some more choice articles:


VAN ALLEN SEES SCIENCE 'CLIQUE'; Says Data on Radiation Belt Reflect Hasty Judgment by Government Insiders VAN ALLEN SEES SCIENCE 'CLIQUE' Adviser

select.nytimes.com...

then goes to apologizes:
news.google.com...,1954404&dq=james+van+allen+radiation+belts&hl=en

Was he being pressured?



We also have these choice articles:

New York Times - Dec 10, 1963

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 (AP)--A committee of space experts has concluded that it will be impossible to provide adequate radiation shielding before 1970 for Apollo spacecraft crews traveling to the moon.

select.nytimes.com...

"Lead shielding might be needed"
news.google.com...,5455178&dq=van+allen+shielding&hl=en


What changed? The discovery of aluminum?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


YES, the article made a serious mistake:


However, the article also contains a serious mistake?


In six moon mission, astronauts brought back exactly 382.042 grams (84 pounds) of lunar material, and Duke knows the disposition of every gram."


382 grams is about 1.95 pounds....not 84!!


It's almost as if Jarrah White himself written it. It is just about up to his level of competency.......



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


You are incorrect. You may have been told this by religious Moon "hoax" believers, but it is an insult to the intelligence of scientists the world over:


The 1969 scientists had nothing to compare the rocks with. They simply believed what NASA told them.



The Lunar samples exhibited many indications that showed them to not be terrestrial in origin. There are many factors involved in the science. Perhaps you should take the time to study the field a bit more, it is well beyond the scope of what can be written here, in a post. Research on the 'net.


For example, a brief search located this:


Lunar Mineralogy

Only four minerals - plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite - account for 98-99% of the crystalline material of the lunar crust. [Material at the lunar surface contains a high proportion of non-crystalline material, but most of this material is glass that formed from melting of rocks containing the four major minerals.] The remaining 1-2% is largely potassium feldspar, oxide minerals such as chromite, pleonaste, and rutile, calcium phosphates, zircon, troilite, and iron metal. Many other minerals have been identified, but most are rare and occur only as very small grains interstitial to the four major minerals.


Read all about it


Perhaps, rather than dissing the real geologists and other scientists on this planet, a Moon "hoax" believer might first wish to go the the effort to getting educated in those fields needed, and earn the degrees necessary to understand the more arcane details and facts that differentiate Lunar samples from terrestrial crustal material.





edit on Fri 28 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
What is really sad is this unhealthy obsession with Nixon that some of you seem to have. And, the fantasy that just ONE President has some sort of "ultimate power" in this alleged "hoax".

Yet, hated and ridiculed and disgraced as he eventually was ---- not ONE individual has ever come forward and made the same claims (with proof) that SayonarraJupiter and Ove38 are making regarding Nixon, and "fake" Moon rocks.

NOT ONE!!

What will you *believers* do in ten years, perhaps fifteen. What will do as every other country that mounts a Lunar mission, and that corroborates the existence of all the Apollo landing sites exactly as the historical records show, and exactly as the latest photos from th LRO show, announces with their photographic evidence as well?

You won't be able to claim that "NASA faked it".

Will you keep calling EVERYONE a liar???

There is probably a mental health term for that........


You have it backwards again. You are the "believer", we are the skeptics. And if you did a word search for the word "liar" in this thread I'll bet you that believers use that word more often than skeptics do. Want to take that bet?

Why do you reject the influence of Nixon at this time? Richard Nixon was president for each of the Apollo lunar missions, exception was Apollo 8 (December 1968) when he was already the president-elect. He had already won the 1968 elections.

Nixon, following on his own unhealthy obsession, used moon rocks and the Apollo astronauts as propaganda tools in his worldwide effort of anti-Communist diplomacy. FACT.

Remember what Farouk El-Baz says in his oral history...

ex[El-Baz: Like some of the astronauts themselves, we really did not either see or feel the incredible impact on history at the time. We just wanted to make it to the Moon before the Russians; it didn’t matter where or how. .

And Farouk El-Baz was hired to Bellcomm by Edward Nixon... the chess players in the Apollo conspiracy had the power to move people (pawns) where they needed them. And these pawns, all fervent anti-Communists, performed their duty without knowing the full extent of the operation. Secrecy by compartmentalization.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

What I dont like is people, like Apollo defenders, coming into this thread, stating they saw a video or two, of usually a multi-part series. And make up their mind about the entire compendium.


The trouble is Jarrah has made over 600 videos the majority of which seem to be concerning the moon hoax.......I'm sure even the most ardent Jarrrah fan will not have watched all of them........so its going to be a tall order to expect anyone else to sit through all his Apollo videos.
So does that mean that everyone on this thread is not really worthy of commenting on Jarrah.....because we haven't watched every video?
I've have watched about 6 videos from Jarrah now.........and everyone of them has mistakes or things which have been debunked already.......so would I really want to watch another few hundred Jarrah videos....not really thanks.
Lets say there existed a compilation of 400 supposed real life ghost videos posted by one guy........yes even if one video is genuine then that confirms the existence of ghosts..........but If you sat through the first 20 or so videos and they all showed obvious signs of fakery.......you aren't likely to sit through all 400 videos just to see if there is a genuine one amongst them.


Originally posted by FoosM

So I focus on what I think are topics worth looking into. Radiation is one of them. Challenger is not. But if you came here and said, "You know, JW made some interesting points about NASA's suspect behavior and actions regarding Challenger, but I dont think his conclusions are correct," Im sure many JW supporters would agree with you.



The trouble is I don't think JW makes any interesting points about NASA "suspect" behaviour regarding Challenger.

The events of Challenger and what happened are well documented and simply point to NASA taking a considered gamble bearing in mind 24 Shuttles had been launched before without any problems.......and as we all know hindsight is a wonderful......and even NASA aren't immune.



Originally posted by FoosM
And that goes for Van Allen and radiation, if you came here and claimed, "I watched all of JW's videos on radiation. Here is my list of pros and cons," then I think a normal discussion can be had.



Again why would I need to watch all of Jarrah videos on radiation if I've I think he's basing it on a faulty premise in the first place.?

I go back to the ghost video analogy.......If someone posted 100 Youtube videos of "orbs" and claimed they were proof of ghosts.......I am not going to sit though 100 orb videos, because I think orbs have many alternative explanations such as dusts, insects, camera/lighting artefacts etc... and I consider orbs the weakest of all as "evidence" of ghosts.


Originally posted by FoosM

Here are some more choice articles:


VAN ALLEN SEES SCIENCE 'CLIQUE'; Says Data on Radiation Belt Reflect Hasty Judgment by Government Insiders VAN ALLEN SEES SCIENCE 'CLIQUE' Adviser

select.nytimes.com...

then goes to apologizes:
news.google.com...,1954404&dq=james+van+allen+radiation+belts&hl=en

Was he being pressured?



Can't access the first New York times article.....but I did access this in the second article you cited
St. Petersburg Times - Feb 15, 1963 :

"Dr.James A Van Allen has retracted his criticism of President Kennedy's Science Advisory Committee concerning the US high altitude nuclear test which created a man-made radiation belt.Dr Van Allen said the criticism should be directed at an inter-agency governmental committee."

Not too sure what this has to do with the Van Allen belt radiation shielding though.


Originally posted by FoosM

We also have these choice articles:

New York Times - Dec 10, 1963

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 (AP)--A committee of space experts has concluded that it will be impossible to provide adequate radiation shielding before 1970 for Apollo spacecraft crews traveling to the moon.

select.nytimes.com...

"Lead shielding might be needed"
news.google.com...,5455178&dq=van+allen+shielding&hl=en


What changed? The discovery of aluminum?




Again I can't access the first New York times article.

In the second article in the The Palm Beach Post - Jun 27, 1964
Dr .Eugene Konecci Cheif of biotechnology and human research for National Aeronautics and space administration is talking about the effects of Long Term Space travel (30 days or more)....not the short 8 day Moon trip.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Ove38
 


You are incorrect. You may have been told this by religious Moon "hoax" believers, but it is an insult to the intelligence of scientists the world over:


The 1969 scientists had nothing to compare the rocks with. They simply believed what NASA told them. When they later (1982) found meteorites that matched the Apollo rocks. They called the meteorites "Lunar meteorites" thinking they came from the moon, since they matched the Apollo rocks.



The Lunar samples exhibited many indications that showed them to not be terrestrial in origin....

Of course they are not of terrestrial origin, they are from space. All meteorites are from space and not from the moon. Meteorites that hit the moon remain on the moon.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Ove38 because: fix text



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

The 1969 scientists had nothing to compare the rocks with. They simply believed what NASA told them. When they later (1982) found meteorites that matched the Apollo rocks. They called the meteorites "Lunar meteorites" thinking they came from the moon, since they matched the Apollo rocks.


So where do you think those Antarctic meteorites come from then?.....If not from the Moon.....where?

Again you seem to be contradicting yourself Ove.

If say they weren't from the moon but instead were from Mecury.........then that implies Man didn't go to the Moon........he went to Mercury.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 




Of course they are not of terrestrial origin, they are from space. All meteorites are from space and not from the moon.


And god forbid that the moon should be in space....



Meteorites that hit the moon remain on the moon.


Or that chunks might be smashed from the moon by the impact of larger rocks....or that you could apply any critical thinking to this



edit on 28-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Ove38

The 1969 scientists had nothing to compare the rocks with. They simply believed what NASA told them. When they later (1982) found meteorites that matched the Apollo rocks. They called the meteorites "Lunar meteorites" thinking they came from the moon, since they matched the Apollo rocks.

So where do you think those Antarctic meteorites come from then?.....If not from the Moon.....where?

Again you seem to be contradicting yourself Ove.

It all sounds contradicting to you because you believe what NASA told you.

A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space (asteroid belt ) that survives impact with the Earth's and the Moon's surface.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

What I dont like is people, like Apollo defenders, coming into this thread, stating they saw a video or two, of usually a multi-part series. And make up their mind about the entire compendium.


The trouble is Jarrah has made over 600 videos the majority of which seem to be concerning the moon hoax.......I'm sure even the most ardent Jarrrah fan will not have watched all of them........so its going to be a tall order to expect anyone else to sit through all his Apollo videos.
So does that mean that everyone on this thread is not really worthy of commenting on Jarrah.....because we haven't watched every video?


Uhh the trouble is nobody is telling you watch EVERY video.
Why do people always over exaggerate?
You pick a subject. Only one if you want.
Moon rocks
Radiation
Reflectors
or whatever.

The point is, if you going to watch a series, to come here
and start a debate about it, makes sure you watch it all.
Geez.






edit on 28-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

It all sounds contradicting to you because you believe what NASA told you.

A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space (asteroid belt ) that survives impact with the Earth's and the Moon's surface.


Meteorites have fusion crusts that form due to passing through the extreme heat of entering Earth's atmosphere.

Geologists know how to identify meteorites and fusion crusts.....so I highly doubt that NASA would have fooled them with meteorites.

edit on 28-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Remedial astronomy classes for you might be a good idea.


Of course they are not of terrestrial origin, they are from space.


If, by using the definition that the Moon is in "space", then yes....this is possibly the first correct statement you have written in this thread.


Of course, your batting average is barely above zero, with this next:


All meteorites are from space and not from the moon.


But, you yourself noted that meteorites found here on Earth are from the Moon??
Are your own lies and twists beginning to confuse you?

See, that's the thing about truth....it is the easiest thing to say, because it is always factual, and has no deception. In order for the Moon landing "hoax" to persist, lies must constantly be concocted. Lies, and deception and distractions, like a magic act.



Meteorites that hit the moon remain on the moon.


Well...yes, even though that is not what you meant, you inadvertently made another truthful statement (it doesn't count, though).

Reason it doesn't count is, the mis-use of the term "meteorite". You see, the meteorite is the object that survives the atmospheric entry (if an atmosphere exists) and the subsequent impact with the surface.

The *thing* that is "incoming" is an object that could be an asteroid, comet, or some other chunk of space junk. In terms of Earth, it is a "meteor" as it is entering the atmosphere.


Furthermore, it must be repeated --- per the quoted sentence just above.

A large enough object that strikes the Moon will cause a great deal of ejecta to form. If there is enough energy from that impact (velocity multiplied by mass) then some ejecta can achieve speeds greater than the escape velocity of the celestial body that is hit.

This ejecta will NOT fall back to the surface of that body....be it the Moon, Mars, Venus, or where ever. This ejecta that escapes the gravitational influence of the lesser body will then remain influenced by the "800 Pound Gorilla" in our Solar System -- the Sun. They will remain in a heliocentric orbit....which, depending on the resulting trajectory, and any changes that occur due to gravitational perturbations, might eventually intersect with Earth's orbit, and impact here.


Like I said....remedial astronomy classes....might throw in some physics, and orbital mechanics education as well....

Of course, just as in any organized religion, those who have fallen into the grips of this "hoax faith" are not likely to be dissuaded from their ludicrous nonsense beliefs.

Those who read the thread, though, might be inspired by many educational aspects of the posts to pursue the information on their own, and learn as a result.....



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Ove38

It all sounds contradicting to you because you believe what NASA told you.

A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space (asteroid belt ) that survives impact with the Earth's and the Moon's surface.


Meteorites have fusion crusts that form due to passing through the extreme heat of entering Earth's atmosphere.

Geologists know how to identify meteorites and fusion crusts.....so I highly doubt that NASA would have fooled them with meteorites.



Not really a problem if they dont give them the part of the meteorite that doesnt have the crust, right?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Your arms must be quite weary, by now....with all this reaching and incredible logic-twisting you have been doing, for weeks (months?) about Nixon.


Nixon, following on his own unhealthy obsession, used moon rocks and the Apollo astronauts as propaganda tools in his worldwide effort of anti-Communist diplomacy.


If Hubert Humphrey (the Democratic Party nominee in 1968) had won the election, then he would have done just about the same thing, in terms of lauding the accomplishments that the nation was (rightly) quite proud of.

Has nothing to do with Nixon's personal endeavors, or agendas.

In fact, from a very logical standpoint, if Nixon was so enamored with the *use* of NASA and Apollo for these "propaganda tools" that you keep claiming, then he would have tried to at least intervene when Congress was cutting the NASA budget to the bone, and killing Apollo!!!

If it was that important to him, he could have twisted arms, told Senator Proxmire to shove it where the Sun don't shine, and possibly even used the heavy hand of an Executive Order to get his way.

He didn't....he didn't care much for NASA; He was not visionary enough to realize the strategic imprtance of continuing the space program, on the shoulders of Apollo....plans that had been formed as was pointed out in this thread often, and is a prt of the historical record.

When some group is mounting a "hoax", as you propose Apollo was based....they don't also draw up long-term plans for continuing the project, and expanding upon it....with ultimate goals of a permanent Lunar base, and manned Mars missions!!!



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Or that chunks might be smashed from the moon by the impact of larger rocks....


And there is evidence of this, right?
Or is it just a theory?



edit on 28-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

In the second article in the The Palm Beach Post - Jun 27, 1964
Dr .Eugene Konecci Cheif of biotechnology and human research for National Aeronautics and space administration is talking about the effects of Long Term Space travel (30 days or more)....not the short 8 day Moon trip.


That doesnt matter.
Only if its about the odds during Solar Minimum.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Not really a problem if they dont give them the part of the meteorite that doesnt have the crust, right?


I'll concede you that point.........but the trouble is geologist already know the composition of meteorites that fall to Earth........they would easily tell if these Moon rock samples were exactly the same as meteorites that have previously been analysed on Earth.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Logical one

Geologists know how to identify meteorites and fusion crusts.....so I highly doubt that NASA would have fooled them with meteorites.



Not really a problem if they dont give them the part of the meteorite that doesnt have the crust, right?


And do you have any evidence that that is what has happened?

AS for your previous question about whether impacts on the moon generating meteorites that fall to Earth has some evidence or is "just a theory" - there is, of course, both - as summarised and outlines and linked to on the wiki page for lunar meteorites - which, as always, I am surprised you have not researched yourself since you are making all sorts of claims....



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Not really a problem if they dont give them the part of the meteorite that doesnt have the crust, right?


I'll concede you that point.........but the trouble is geologist already know the composition of meteorites that fall to Earth........they would easily tell if these Moon rock samples were exactly the same as meteorites that have previously been analysed on Earth.


And of course meteorites subsequently identified as lunar were already identified as "unusual" prior to the moon landings - but until samples had been bough back no one knew why!
edit on 28-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 628  629  630    632  633  634 >>

log in

join