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: 632
377
<< 629  630  631    633  634  635 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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.



no entiendo




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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!!!


ProudBird, I gather from reading your posts that you are of the age that you were alive and aware of the Apollo moon landings when they first occurred, that is to say, you were alive in real time 1969. Am I right?

The moon rocks and the astronauts were only small pawns of a larger chess match. That's my view which I am entitled to hold. I am even willing to accept all of your arguments and views - you are entitled to hold them.

But for a moment just imagine the Cold War years played out as a chess game by American presidents against Russians Premiers.

The Russian's underestimated Richard Nixon by a long long way off. You are also underestimating Nixon too much I think. And I think it is also important to recall how Nixon used Apollo 11 moon rocks for propaganda and to recall who he gave those moon rocks.

Richard Nixon gave the Apollo 11 moon rocks to 137 world leaders. The first three recipients of Apollo 11 moon rocks were... in order...

1. Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines
2. Nguyen VanTheiu, South Viet Nam
3. Chiang Kai-shek, Tawain

All of 3 them military dictators. There are many ironies that go along with this. Such as - America went to the moon for peace! for all mankind! That was a lie.

America went to the moon for p r o p a g a n d a



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I see your problem.

You keep focusing on Apollo 11, and those gifted samples (which, without needing to go into detail, were very small, and encased in Lucite, as has been mentioned countless times already).

In 1972, furthermore (since Apollo was shot in the heart by the U.S. Congress) more samples were also gifted, from the Apollo 17 mission, since it was the last. (Would have been Apollo 20, had the program been funded to its conclusion).


After the Apollo Moon landings, then-U.S. President Richard Nixon distributed approximately 250 displays containing lunar surface materials from Apollo 11 (1969) to the 50 states and various other countries around the world, and then later gave away 135 rock samples from Apollo 17 (1972).


www.universetoday.com...


There were no "hoax" proponents at the time....no "whistle-blowers" either. (EVEN after all these decades....).

All this nonsense began many years later, well after the fact....and no amount of attempted revisionist history will change the established facts.

The manned Lunar mission "hoax" meme is borne out of abject ignorance, fostered by a few, and perpetuated by them onto willingly ignorant 'followers' who don't bother to get off of their duffs, and learn a bit of science in order to gain some actual knowledge.....or, to go out and build the experience needed to understand the technological aspects of real aerospace and how things really work in the real world.

Adding on to the insanity of the "hoax" believers is the ardent proof that is currently readily available now, form the ever-increasingly vivid and detailed images from Lunar orbiters. This will only improve with time, in the coming years.

Making people like Jarrah White, and the late Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene'....and that buffoon Bart Sibrel, and all their ilk. Laughing stocks of history.

Because, this IS the Internet. And, very little of what goes into cyberspace is ever lost. The ridiculous claims of those I have just mentioned will be forever enshrined, somewhere in "digital-land"..... and will be discussed, dissected, and laughed at for a very long time to come.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Only a criminal minded conspiracy would collect A L L the telemetry tapes into Accession #69A4099 and then conveniently lose them. Here is a map showing the distance from the National Archives to Goddard space flight center in Maryland.


700 boxes. 3500 tapes. 15 miles. A L L M I S S I N G.




edit on 10/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edit



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



All this nonsense began many years later, well after the fact....and no amount of attempted revisionist history will change the established facts.


interesting, I wonder when the first serious call of "hoax" did occur??

Anyone know??/



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

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.



no entiendo


Whats the difference to planning to spend one day in space vrs 30 during a solar flare event?
Or let me say it this way, is there a real difference planning to spend one day in a pool of hungry sharks, vrs say 30?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by ProudBird
 



All this nonsense began many years later, well after the fact....and no amount of attempted revisionist history will change the established facts.


interesting, I wonder when the first serious call of "hoax" did occur??

Anyone know??/



Thats why Bill Kaysing is known as the grandfather of the moon hoax.
His book was published in '81, I believe.

Though, you had of course Capricorn 1, and Diamonds are Forever, prior to that.
But that was more to raise suspicion. Clues left behind by those in the know.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

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?


Yes, actually JW provided that in his last videos about lunar rocks.
Have a look.



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....


What makes you think I haven't read a few articles about it.
So what exactly is the evidence?
Because Im not seeing it.
And make sure its not a circular argument as we are posting on an Apollo hoax thread.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



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





(You like minimalist posts with no links, so I am returning the favor.)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Yes, actually JW provided that in his last videos about lunar rocks.
Have a look.


followed by.....



So what exactly is the evidence?
Because Im not seeing it.
And make sure its not a circular argument as we are posting on an Apollo hoax thread.


Hmm....

Since you and you ilk cannot prove that he moon landing didn't happen, and everyone else knows that they did, it is not a circular argument to use that evidence.

I know you don't like it - but that just comes with the territory of believing a theory that has no credible supporting evidence, and having every one of your arguments trashed over and over as you circulate through them hoping people will have forgotten the last time.

Your problem is not my problem.


To answer this:


What makes you think I haven't read a few articles about it.


Your question about what is the evidence makes me think it.

The evidence that lunar meteorites are different from both earth rocks and other meteorites is amply covered in Wiki article - I can only assume you haven't bothered reading it, because you keep asking for it.

If you had rad it and disagreed with it then you'd say so.

If you'd read it and it convinced you then you wouldn't keep asking.

Ergo you haven't read it.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by ProudBird
 



All this nonsense began many years later, well after the fact....and no amount of attempted revisionist history will change the established facts.


interesting, I wonder when the first serious call of "hoax" did occur??

Anyone know??/

ProudBird is wrong

Bill Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon in 1974. Where he among other things pointed out that there's no blast crater under the Lunar Module. The next forty years so-called "debunkers" claimed that this was because the Lunar Module engine was turned off before touch down. As usual this claim is not true.




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Well done..
So yes, Proud Bird was wrong..
In fact Kaysing was actually questioning Apollo before 11 even landed on the moon..


Even before July 1969, he had "a hunch, an intuition, ... a true conviction" and decided that he didn't believe that anyone was going to the moon.



Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon, which was self-published in 1974

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



Bill Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon in 1974. Where he among other things pointed out that there's no blast crater under the Lunar Module. The next forty years so-called "debunkers" claimed that this was because the Lunar Module engine was turned off before touch down. As usual this claim is not true.


Because we must believe everything posted on YouTube, mustn't we? LunaCognita does not say how he synchronized the audio track, nor at what frame rate he was playing the DAC footage at. Nice try, though. It's not as though we've never discussed the "blast crater" on this thread:

Page 2

Page 280

Page 402

Oh... it's been 200 pages... I guess we're about due.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

PAN'S LABYRINTH


Part 1: SHRINKING VIOLET


It has been my experience that you can look randomly anywhere in the Apollo records and find
something fishy.

Well, while perusing through a few photos... I think I found something fishy.
The following concerns:
AS15-92-12424-5, and 6


148:02:20 Rightward of 12423. This frame from Dave's Station 8 pan shows Jim standing wide-legged as he digs the partially-completed trench in front of him. He sticks the scoop into the wall opposite where he is standing and propels the scoop-load of regolith back between his legs. The narrow fan of throwback can be seen behind him and, indeed, there seems to be some material still in motion at the far end of the throwback pattern just above the two fiducials at mid-thigh height. Mt. Hadley is in the background.




What I noticed is that Mt. Hadley from 12424 to 12425 shrinks. And yet, the astronaut from 12424 to 5 grows in size! How is that possible?

If the photography stepped back to take the second photo to get the Hadley in the frame, then you also expect the astronaut to get smaller. Not the other way around.


If you look at a video grab of the same scene,


Though the camera is further back, Hadley dwarfs the astronaut.




Rightward of 12424, showing Jim tossing a scoopful of dirt back between his legs as he digs the trench. Note the well-defined blob of dirt that has just left the scoop head. Note the Velcro strip on the raised cover of Jim's thigh pocket. Note, also, that Jim has his side visors extended.


So Jim is tossing dirt between his legs.
We see him do this from in the beginning of this video to about 36 seconds:
next.nasa.gov...

After that, he scoops the dirt to the side, his left side.
Also take notice that while scooping the dirt, the astronaut seems to be "floaty"
As if he is pushing himself off the ground.... or, being pulled up


Also note as he is digging, the dirt that he scoops out doesn't seem to land and accumulate anywhere.
And if he is hitting the bottom, how is he getting so much dirt in the scoop?

At any rate, these three shots came from a simple pan.
The astronaut did not change his position, did not change lenses,
he simple turned and supposedly took photos.

And even if he took a step back or forward, would it make such a dramatic difference in changing
the scale of Mt. Hadley in the photos?


next.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The astronaut that took the pics could have been moving or maybe he just raised the camera a little..
That would do it Foosm..

I don't see anything odd, but if it was a fixed camera that would be different.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 


The astronaut that took the pics could have been moving or maybe he just raised the camera a little..
That would do it Foosm..

I don't see anything odd, but if it was a fixed camera that would be different.


This is not a matter of simply raising the photo BiB. The photos pretty much line up. Slight differences in the foreground, with much bigger differences in the background. That doesn't jive.



Raising the camera would lower the astronaut to reveal the top of Hadley. And actually, in the photos you can see the top of the PLSS is higher in the subsequent photos, not lower. That makes no sense. Certainly the astronaut tilts up a bit, which would rotate the PLSS, but he is not bent at the knees lower in one photo vrs another which would affect the height.

Furthermore, and you will see in my next posts, the photographer did not take any steps while panning the camera.

But thanks for your observation.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

PAN'S LABYRINTH


Part 2: Non de script


Now what I find further peculiar is the following:


148:05:03 Scott: Tell me when you're ready for pictures, Jimmy.
148:05:08 Irwin: I think I'm just about ready, Dave.

148:05:12 Scott: Okay. (Pause) Okay. (Pause) Okay, let me take your pictures then.



This conversation can be heard 50 seconds into the video:
next.nasa.gov...


Well what does that mean? Its clear that Scott is going to take pictures of Jim.
But what pictures did he take??


The only pictures of Jim digging the trench is
AS15-92-12424 to 6.
But this PAN started at:


148:02:20 Scott: Okay, my pan. Get it out of the way real quick. (Long Pause)
Dave's Station 8 Pan ( frames AS15-92- 12420 to 12438 )



And the next photos after the pan are:

148:10:11 Scott: It looks like it has a little color change down there, too.

[Dave takes a stereopair, AS15-92- 12439 and 12440. He then changes the camera settings.]


So clearly, there is a mismatch... and photos missing???

Its funny, because later, at the end of the video, we get this little piece of info which might offer a clue to the script screw up:



148:07:03 Scott: (Laughing) You know, Jim, I got a checklist on the left arm for one thing that's going on now, and a checklist on the right arm for something else that's going on now.

148:07:12 Irwin: Wild, isn't it?

148:07:15 Scott: (Hearty laughter) Unreal. (Long Pause)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Barrel distorsion? Objects stretch at the edges especially noticable with wide angle lenses.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


What a shame..... :shk:


Bill Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon in 1974.


Yes....a self-published screed filled with nonsense, and laughed at by real scientists and knowledgeable people who possess critical thinking skills and experience.


Where he among other things pointed out that there's no blast crater under the Lunar Module.


Because they (like "hoax" believers) do NOT understand the physics involved!!

I mean, really....for the moment, to get on *your* side of "thinking"...if this were all "faked", then don't you think *they* would have thought of that??!!?? Meaning, to make it *look right* for all the loonies out there in Layman's Land??



The next forty years so-called "debunkers" claimed that this was because the Lunar Module engine was turned off before touch down. As usual this claim is not true.


Followed by that slickly-done 'LunaCognita' video showing the LM DAC footage. It is "slick" because the Data Acquisition Camera was a 16-mm film camera, and had no soundtrack!! 'Luna' says he attempted to sync the audio recording as best as possible, but in any case it was his interpretation and artistry.

Now, for most landings it was the desired procedure to stop the engine just after the 'Contact' light illuminated, at a height of less than two meters (a bit less than six feet). This was not a hard-and-fast rule, as seen when reviewing each landing. It was up to the guy flying, and his skill and "feel" for it....just is it is with any pilot when landing.

Nevertheless, even with the engine running at the power setting it was using for the descent, because of the large area of the nozzle bell opening, all the propellant could do as it exited the nozzle was move material out of the way laterally. It was not a concentrated blast of hot flame, as was often depicted in early science fiction of that era (where those numbskulls like Kaysing seem to have gotten this notion). (Think of "Flash Gordon"....that is one image that "hoax" believers have in their minds, and it is why many of them can't grasp reality).

[Also, another misconception comes from the real-life launches of real rocket boosters seen in Earth's atmosphere --- using different engines, different fuel mixtures, and at much, much higher thrust values....and again, in an atmosphere.]

Because, remember the physics....on the Moon there is no atmosphere. Unlike here on Earth, where the rapidly moving gases have to displace the air, and that adds an additional component of force, as the air helps displace loose objects. In a vacuum, this is not the case.

Here, this video explains it better in 8 minutes than can be written out in one post.

Of course, I expect those here who cling firmly to their "hoax" religion will not watch -- therefore, it's for the benefit of those who actually wish to learn science, instead of relying on *intuition* and false assumptions:





edit on Sat 29 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats the difference to planning to spend one day in space vrs 30 during a solar flare event?
Or let me say it this way, is there a real difference planning to spend one day in a pool of hungry sharks, vrs say 30?


I think you will find that there were no "major" solar flare events during the Apollo missions.

Obviously the longer you stay in space the larger chance you have of getting hit by a "major" solar flare, therefore planning for longer term space travel 30 days plus ,or even a manned mission to Mars which Dr .Eugene Konecci Chief of biotechnology and human research for National Aeronautics and space administration alludes to in the article back in the 1964, is a totally different animal to planning the "short" trip to the Moon.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
377
<< 629  630  631    633  634  635 >>

log in

join