Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!, page 643

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 03:11 AM

link

Originally posted by ProudBird
The chart posted above --- note the location listed for the temperature readings (**). Then, learn about how the systems were designed, and how temperature readings can vary depending on the location that are measured, in any vehicle.

If you disagree with this chart then you shall post a more accurate chart. Very simple task.

What could be more accurate than this????

edit on 11/3/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

JohnnySasaki

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 06:22 AM

link

Originally posted by backinblack
You think the cabin was fully heated at all times?
I doubt that when they were in their suits they wasted energy on heating the cabin..
Gets very COLD out in space, and just a small point.

The LOX tanks were NOT carried inside the nicely heated cabin anyway.

Every single point you are trying to make is moot.

I have no idea if it was heated at all times, but I believe that someone had already said that it was. However, even if it wasn't, they would be in their space suits, so what the hell does it matter? You make no sense.

Gets very COLD out in space, and just a small point.

Well genius, the lower the pressure, the lower the boiling point of a liquid. Any liquid boils when its vapor pressure reaches its surrounding pressure. Sure, most of space is pretty cold, but guess what space is? A vacuum.

Again, moot anyway. If it was cold enough for the air inside the capsule to turn back into a liquid, then they would be wearing their space suits.

The LOX tanks were NOT carried inside the nicely heated cabin anyway.

What does it matter where they were stored? They are in pressurized containers. Are you insinuating they would be colder? If so, they're supposed to be. I've already explained that LO2 boils at -297.F, so the colder the better. What's more, they probably didn't need to be cold in the first place, because I've already explained what pressure does to boiling points right? Higher pressure would cause the boiling point of the oxygen to go way up. Why do you think the propane can on your grill doesn't need to be cooled to stay in liquid form?

You might also want to elaborate how the 100% oxygen atmosphere in the Apollo 13 rescue ship creates water condensation on solid surfaces.

Who said anything about 100% oxygen? They're pumping 100% oxygen in, but that doesn't mean they end up with 100% oxygen. You've got 3 guys breathing out carbon dioxide, and perspiring the whole trip. The sweat evaporates and causes condensation. Also the air you breath out has water vapor in it. 57% of the average human body is made up of water. There's going to be some sort of osmosis going on.

Now I'm just taking a guess here, but I assume it didn't happen on Apollo 11 and 16 because the air filters were working.

backinblack

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 06:31 AM

link

reply to post by JohnnySasaki

What a waste of space with little actually said..

backinblack

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 06:51 AM

link

reply to post by JohnnySasaki

A respected foe..

I rest my case on the childish aspect.

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM

link

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Sigh.

Both Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 were "colder" than Apollo 13.
You might also want to elaborate how the 100% oxygen atmosphere in the Apollo 13 rescue ship creates water condensation on solid surfaces.

Apollo 11 and 16 are both colder than 13.

Again, referring to that chart that cataloged the average temperature readings, and were measured AT THE HEAT EXCHANGER INLET!!!

Do you understand what them sentence means???

The conditioned cabin air circulated, and there were many temperature sensors located in various places.

But, this is something that I hope YOU will be able to understand....on Apollo 13 the POWER WAS SHUT DOWN for many hours, during the emergency! When the power was off, there were NO temperature readings recorded.....so the average of the temperature that is listed in the chart reflects this, and gives a SKEWED IMPRESSION to those such as yourself who do not understand the engineering, and the reality of how complicated machines like a spacecraft actually work.

In terms of the way systems such as these are designed, it really isn't much different than your modern jet airliners.

We have temperature sensors in many places within the system, for different reasons, all to collect data to monitor and provide input for control.

In the case of the Apollo CM, the actual *test* of comfort is merely what the occupants preferred, and what they felt. As is the case, with the electronics inside, there would have been spots in it that were warmer (radiant heat from the equipment) and cooler, as you moved around in it.

The interior of a jet airplane is similar....especially in the cockpits, where you are around more of that sort of electronic equipment. The 727 was particularly uncomfortable sometimes, for the two pilots (this is 1960s era design, remember). The frames of the windows, being metal, would tend to conduct the very cold temperatures into the cabin, from outside. The Flight Engineer, sitting behind, had a big warm instrument panel to keep him comfortable. Air circulation inefficiencies made for this inequity, and you learned to live with it.

edit on Thu 3 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:56 AM

link

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If you disagree with this chart then you shall post a more accurate chart.

You have not yet even bothered to show your source for this chart!!?? "Why", I am forced to wonder.....

What could be more accurate than this????

As per my post above. PLEASE try to comprehend.

One more thing, about Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Those three were 'J' missions, and they conducted an EVA from the CM during the coast to Earth, after the TEI burn.

So, the CM interior was vented to vacuum for the short time needed to exit, and retrieve the film magazines from the Service Module bays. In a vacuum, the heat loss would have been minimal during that time, but nonetheless, there would have been some as the internal air was vented,,,,,and, then when they re-pressurized, it's likely the incoming air was fairly cold.....as it was obtained from the liquid oxygen in storage tanks. It would have been moderately raised to approach normal *shirt-sleeve* temperatures....rather than blasting the dudes with freezingly cold air......and, of course, there was a period of time as they doffed the suits, while the cabin inernal temperature stabilized.

Apollo 15:

Day 11 and EVA

The main task on the eleventh day in space was an EVA by Worden. This was the first EVA by a Command Module Pilot since Scott performed one on Apollo 9.

As the crew began their preparations, they left the Lunar Sphere of Influence at 238 hours, 14 minutes, 51 seconds GET, at which point the gravitational pull of the Earth was stronger than that of the Moon. From now on they would start to accelerate towards the Earth. After retracting and turning off the equipment in the SIM bay, the crew donned their space suits. They disabled the RCS thrusters that were near the SIM and if accidentally fired would have been dangerous to Worden. Guards were also placed over the control panel to ensure that switches were not flicked by an errant foot.

After suit checks and depressurizing the spacecraft, the hatch was opened. After mounting a TV and film camera on the hatch, Worden jettisoned two bags of rubbish that did not need to be returned to Earth. Then using handholds built into the craft he moved along to the SIM bay. Along with retrieval he was tasked with inspecting the instruments to find the cause for the various problems experienced with them.

First he retrieved the film cassette from the Panoramic Camera and returned that to the cabin. After inspecting the "V-over-H" sensor on the Mapping Camera he retrieved its film cassette. He found that there was nothing obscuring the sensor as had been postulated by Mission Control as a cause for its problems. Later analysis would find that the problem was related to the optical signal-to-noise ratio.

Snippet from Apollo 15, Return to Earth

SayonaraJupiter

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:49 AM

link

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If you disagree with this chart then you shall post a more accurate chart.

You have not yet even bothered to show your source for this chart!!?? "Why", I am forced to wonder.....

That table happens to be part of the official Sacred Apollo Scriptures. It clearly shows that Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 were *colder* than Apollo 13.

And previously you stated,

on Apollo 13 the POWER WAS SHUT DOWN for many hours, during the emergency! When the power was off, there were NO temperature readings recorded.....so the average of the temperature that is listed in the chart reflects this, and gives a SKEWED IMPRESSION to those such as yourself who do not understand the engineering, and the reality of how complicated machines like a spacecraft actually work.

If you were not so blind you would admit that NASA SKEWED THE DATA in this table to make it appear that the Command Module Cabin temperatures never exceeded the limits of 57F-81F.

And here in this post you stated, www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you just rent the movie "Apollo 13", many aspects of the reality of the Apollo living conditions are answered....especially since they had to de-power the CM to conserve its batteries, and take refuge in the LM for the return coast home. The CM got very cold inside, when power was shut down.

This is what the Apollo 13 showed:

The un-powered CM got so cold that water began to condense on solid surfaces, causing concern that this might damage electrical systems when it was reactivated. This turned out not to be a problem, partly because of the extensive electrical insulation improvements instituted after the Apollo 1 fire.

Here's the real reason that Houston had a problem.

The crew was in good condition except for Haise, who was suffering from a serious urinary tract infection because of insufficient water intake. To avoid altering the trajectory of the spacecraft, the crew had been instructed to temporarily stop urine dumps. A misunderstanding prompted the crew to store all urine for the rest of the flight.

To use an expression, "NASA is taking the piss." Do you know what that expression means?

JohnnySasaki

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

And here in this post you stated, www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you just rent the movie "Apollo 13", many aspects of the reality of the Apollo living conditions are answered....especially since they had to de-power the CM to conserve its batteries, and take refuge in the LM for the return coast home. The CM got very cold inside, when power was shut down.

This is what the Apollo 13 showed:

The un-powered CM got so cold that water began to condense on solid surfaces, causing concern that this might damage electrical systems when it was reactivated. This turned out not to be a problem, partly because of the extensive electrical insulation improvements instituted after the Apollo 1 fire.

Here's the real reason that Houston had a problem.

The crew was in good condition except for Haise, who was suffering from a serious urinary tract infection because of insufficient water intake. To avoid altering the trajectory of the spacecraft, the crew had been instructed to temporarily stop urine dumps. A misunderstanding prompted the crew to store all urine for the rest of the flight.

To use an expression, "NASA is taking the piss." Do you know what that expression means?

Both of the things you quoted happened in the movie. What's your point?

SayonaraJupiter

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Waiting for some expert commentary on that "L shaped" flag and the uniformity of blackness which encircles the Challenger descent stage.

I don't find the "L shaped" flag to be credible. The black pixels are larger than the surrounding gray area and were obviously dropped in.

As Aloysius the Gaul asks before me........what was the point you were making Sayonara?

edit on 2-11-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

First I will re-attach this image for comparison.

Let us all step back for a moment and look critically at these 2 images. Both these images were provided by NASA. Accordingly, we may presume, that NASA DOES NOT possess any better technology to take better pictures than these examples.

The skeptics will immediately query "Who enhanced these images?". Well, that will take a lot of digging. We know that Arizona State University is involved with LRO images. But the main question is this,

Who controls the release of LRO pictures? Does NASA receive the pictures from ASU and release them to the public or does ASU release pictures without NASA oversight?

Now we can also examine these 2 pictures from a technical level and the photo experts in this thread may be able to give us good insights into what is happening here with the flag and the black shadow around the Challenger descent stage.

An honest examination of these 2 pictures could be helpful to the thread.

SayonaraJupiter

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Both of the things you quoted happened in the movie. What's your point?

NASA and Hollywood make good bedfellows

backinblack

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

At maximum resolution of 1pixel/50cm that must be one HUGE flag even allowing for shadow.

How many pixels wide/long you reckon that is??

DJW001

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The skeptics will immediately query "Who enhanced these images?". Well, that will take a lot of digging. We know that Arizona State University is involved with LRO images. But the main question is this,

Who controls the release of LRO pictures? Does NASA receive the pictures from ASU and release them to the public or does ASU release pictures without NASA oversight?

So? Why aren't you digging? All, and I repeat, all of this information is publicly accessible. The LROC data is received through the DSN, where it is immediately sent to MOC, which then sends it to SOC, which then makes it available to the public in less than six months, or immediately, depending on its importance. In English, the Deep Space Tracking Network receives the data, which sends it to Mission Operations Center, which moves from Kennedy Spaceflight Center (at launch) to Goddard Space Flight Center afterwards. The data, which, strictly speaking, is not yet imagery, is then sent to Science Operations Center, which is (mostly) at Arizona State University. It is there that the data is processed. (Some of the data also gets sent elsewhere, for other types of processing. The Adler Planetarium in Chicago, for example, takes these huge chunks of inter-related visual and ranging data and uses algorithms to create interactive "3D" video.)

www.lroc.asu.edu...

You can even put names and addresses to the "conspirators" involved:

www.lroc.asu.edu...

If you have any genuine questions, feel free to shoot them an e-mail.

Now we can also examine these 2 pictures from a technical level and the photo experts in this thread may be able to give us good insights into what is happening here with the flag and the black shadow around the Challenger descent stage.

An honest examination of these 2 pictures could be helpful to the thread.

Resolution comparison between nominal orbit images of the Apollo 17 landing site (a, b) and the new low orbit image (c; 27 cm x 56 cm pixel size). What is visible in an image is not simply a matter of the size of a pixel projected onto the surface. Sun angle and direction are also important factors, as is the exposure level. When the Sun is high above the horizon differences in surface brightness are enhanced, and when the Sun is low surface roughness is more obvious. Linear features are enhanced when they lie perpendicular to the direction to the Sun, and tend to disappear when parallel. When an image is underexposed or overexposed contrast and detail suffer. The top two images (a,b) have larger pixel scales (49 cm, 54 cm) and incidence angles (55° and 21° from vertical) that bracket the new higher resolution image (c; 45°).

www.nasa.gov...

This is about all I have to say about this image. It's data that has been assembled into a comprehensible image by dozens of people. Take it or leave it.

Now, to get this thread back on topic: what does Jarrah have to say about these pictures?
edit on 4-11-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

FoosM

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

1. You aknowledge that the shadows look like they are going different directions. Thanks. Thats what I was pointing out.

1. Your grammar, your intellectual ineptitude, and your childish remarks/conclusions is making it seem like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

2. I'm acknowledging the fact that YOU think they look like they're going in different directions, and I'm pointing out that they DO NOT.

You can spin it all you want, but that is not what you stated:

The topography of the moon makes the shadows LOOK like they're going in different directions,

Thats all you.

...Let me ask you guys a question,

1. Asking a question is not proving anything one way or the other. Its just asking a question. As in, you dont know.

I DO know the answer, I'm simply insinuating that YOU do not, and that if you thought about the question you would come to the conclusion you were wrong. Which you are.

So you know how you can have multiple shadows, crisp and defined, on a photo?
Great, so tell us how, if you think I dont know how its done?

if there are so many different lights that are making all these different shadows, then why are all the shadows lines so crisp and defined?

1. Now here is the answer to your question: Compositing, touch ups. Already stated numerous times without dispute.

Impossible, especially with the technology in 1969. I am well versed in editing images in photoshop (which they didn't have in 1969 btw), and even with today's technology it would be extremely time consuming to even come up with a single photo that looked anything close to as good as what they have,

Right... faking and staging photos were impossible back in '69, but landing men on the moon was a piece of cake.
And to say that even with today's technology faking photos are extremely time consuming? Are you kidding me?
What is time consuming for you? A day or two?

They tried to pass this off as the real thing:

They admitted it was fake... but how did they even construct it?
How did they manage with all those shadows? They are all crisp and defined!
You think it took them more than a few months to do this? And was it worth it?

I've got some more.

Shadows in the front, shadows in the back, nothing in the middle

Fake plaster-of-paris Mt. Hadley... how did they manage with the shadows?

Shadow looks like its about to go poo.
And the shadow of the tripod wants to get away?

Looks like they found the other rover that was left behind!
Proof its real right? I mean, there is no way they could have just cut and pasted that in...
the shadows would make it too difficult to accomplish.

Hey, sharp and blurry shadows at the same time!

Hmmm.... nice soft filter for those romantic poses.

Godzilla shadow about to eat astronaut for lunch.

NASA whistle-blowing?

I don know why these astronauts like to carry their rovers.
Maybe they are being polite and dont want to leave tracks!

I like how the shadow of the LM leg just seems to pass through astronaut so it doesnt block him for
the iconic photo.

Beautiful photo... right?

A rare photo of Neil finally found.

Officer on deck!

Are the shadows really all going the same direction?

Finally! Possibly a real picture taken on the moon!

No, no, after you!

Now see if you can identify all the examples that are the NASA originals!
Yeah, thats right, they weren't all examples of fakes of the original fakes.
We'll see how long it takes.

PsykoOps

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link

This is just pure comedy gold right here. Still bitching about the shadows. Maybe you should consult an "expert" like White did

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

That table happens to be part of the official Sacred Apollo Scriptures.

That is not an answer ..... I asked for the SOURCE.

The chart is labelled, "Measured at the Inlet to the Heat Exchanger - See Text"

You did not provide the SOURCE, you brushed it off when it was asked, you hand-waved it away, childishly flouting the comment as quoted above.

The note, there that says "See Text" is pertinent to the proper interpretation of the data that the Chart is displaying. Well educated people understand this concept, and how charts, graphs, etc......all of the compiled data of that nature needs to be in context in order to properly understand the criteria they (the 'data') are describing.

It clearly shows that Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 were *colder* than Apollo 13.

It does not "clearly" show anything of the sort! The section in the column labeled "average" speaks opposite of your assertion.....and even then, the term "average" is also misunderstood, and not relevant to Apollo 13, since (and I will repeat):

For a great part of the flight of Apollo 13 the power was off!! Therefore, the "average" only reflects that period of time when the spacecraft (the CM) was powered up. None of the temperature sensors would have recorded any data during the period of power-down!!

Those figures in the Chart, based only on the labels since I have not seen the notes it mentions indicate to me that the temperature readings were not taken nor recorded from inside the living spaces of the CM.

Clear as black & white, it is the "Heat Exchanger Inlet" temperature. Knowing the schematics and design of the system, and the actual physical location of the Heat Exchanger, is one vital step to properly interpreting that Chart's data.

By omitting the full information and details, intentionally selecting and cherry-picking what they show in their "arguments", the Apollo *hoax pushers* show their true colors.......

edit on Fri 4 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

FoosM

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link

Originally posted by PsykoOps

This is just pure comedy gold right here. Still bitching about the shadows. Maybe you should consult an "expert" like White did

Not all the images are originals Psyko!

edit on 4-11-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

FoosM

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you say you see the same thing happened in any of the ascent videos? Either from hitting the lower LM stage, or even the ground? And if not, why dont you think this happened?

Of course it does. Just watch any of the ascent videos, be it from the on board DAC footage or video from the rovers on Apollo's 15 - 17. You can see dust and debris get blown all over the place.

How do you explain debris and dust flying all over the place in the vacuum of space?

Take a look at this video:

That flag is still there.

Dust and debris flying all over the place is not the same as objects catching fire like we see occurring with the rings in the staging process:
www.ehartwell.com...

So when we see this video,

and we see the flag fluttering.
I would like to know what exactly is causing that?
And why does the flag not catch flame, and why does the flag not fly away?
Considering:

flame temperatures generally range from about 2,500 to 3,600 C (4,500-6,500 F).

Well, thats the whole point, I do see the small glowing dot, but I expect to see a brightly hot glowing dot.

How bright should it be then exactly?

Good point, I wouldnt be able to tell you.

www.braeunig.us...

PsykoOps

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link

Just to make the point about the shadows end I'd like to show you what is causing the "look" in the shadows. They may appear to be different. That is what happens when you take pictures or look at things when you take into account perspective and camera distortion.
Like this one. It looks like the shadows are going to different directions but they aren't.
flick
Also things might stretch and distort in camera.
Barrel distortion. It looks like the trees are bent to hell but in reality they aren't.
I know what your point was with the example photos but that is pretty moot.

Logical one

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link

Originally posted by PsykoOps

This is just pure comedy gold right here. Still bitching about the shadows. Maybe you should consult an "expert" like White did

Ahhh the old Jarrah White photographic "expert"..........who turns out to be Jarrah White's Visual Art Teacher Jenny Heller....who admits to have zero photographic qualifications!

In fact the afore mention Visual Arts Teacher reveals that the video was in fact a class assignment .......and Jarrah decides surprise surprise to make a wait for it.....wait for it..........".Moon Hoax video" for his arts assignment and asks his teacher to play his "expert"........only Jarrah never actually admits to this in his videos.

"he (Jarrah) asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer," Jenny Heller

That is what I call Comedy gold!

edit on 4-11-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

DJW001

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link

reply to post by FoosM

I'm not in the mood to play your usual childish game of "Please explain this photo to me," however I do want you to back up this claim:

They tried to pass this off as the real thing:

Please post a link that proves that NASA tried to pass off that humorous photo as the real thing. If you cannot do that, you have to admit you've been caught in yet another lie. Oh, and the answer to your big puzzle is: the ones that weren't gotten from this page, where they explain who made each "gag" image, are the real ones:

www.hq.nasa.gov...