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: 646
377
<< 643  644  645    647  648  649 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



If you are talking about Apollo 11 Neil said that he could see his footprints and the treads of his boots in the "fine, sandy particles".


Still no comment about this post?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



If you are talking about Apollo 11 Neil said that he could see his footprints and the treads of his boots in the "fine, sandy particles".


If you were following the flow of conversation.....the initial claim by 'FoosM' was that during the launch of the ASCENT Module, the flag should have been "sandblasted".

The Lunar Module DESCENT portion acted as a sort of launchpad, and as such, the Ascent Module was elevated, on that lower section above the Lunar surface. There was no accumulation of Lunar regolith up there, surrounding the Ascent Module engine thrust nozzle.

Is this difficult to understand for some reason?

Here....instead of posting the (rather large) image, just a link to the photo, with a Human astronaut standing next to the spacecraft, for size comparison:




Understanding how the exhaust gases would behave in a vacuum is another crucial aspect to understanding that the Ascent engine thrust pattern would NOT have affected the regolith located on the Lunar surface. Also, there was the simple fact of that large object (the Descent Module) acting as a launchpad that was in the way....



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

Understanding how the exhaust gases would behave in a vacuum is another crucial aspect to understanding that the Ascent engine thrust pattern would NOT have affected the regolith located on the Lunar surface. Also, there was the simple fact of that large object (the Descent Module) acting as a launchpad that was in the way....


Yet the flag fluttered from the exhaust.
So the launchpad did not block it all did it?
You cant have it both ways.

As a matter of fact, they had placed the ALSEP a distance away so it wouldn't get damaged by the dust kicked up by the ascent of the LM.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



If you are talking about Apollo 11 Neil said that he could see his footprints and the treads of his boots in the "fine, sandy particles".


Still no comment about this post?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The table I posted was called "TABLE 1 Command Module Cabin Temperatures in K (F) Measured at the Inlet to the Heat Exchanger" . At the lowest point Apollo 13 reads 58F.

Your table is "TABLE 4 System Parameters during Apollo 13". One of the Parameters in Table 4 is called "Cabin Temperature". At the lowest point reads 43F.

Even the original text points out that Apollo 13 Cabin Temperature is :


It is likely that the figure in the original text refers to the low cabin temperature while the Command Module was powered up.


So when we look at this quote in the context of the temperatures readings...


"...Command Module just slowly kept going down in temperature until I think err,
just prior to re-entry ahh, it was down to about 38 degrees. And along with that
there was a, a sort of chilling ahh, coldness. The walls were perspiring, the
windows were completely wet, and it err, it wasn't too healthy. I recall that we
went to get some hot dogs one day and it was like reaching into the freezer for
them, for the food."


What is he even talking about? He says the walls were perspiring at 38F and the hotdogs were in a place that was even colder. This foolish astronaut is trying to fool us.

Where is he getting the hotdogs? He seems to be saying that the hotdogs were abnormally cold because he is making a remark about a "freezer". So where is he getting his hotdogs from?

edit on 11/5/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Not sure how this is so difficult to understand....or, do I? Is this just another tactic to alter the conversation, each time, in order to muddy the flow of the topic?


Yet the flag fluttered from the exhaust.
So the launchpad did not block it all did it?
You cant have it both ways.


You are not stupid....and you know full well what was written. The Descent stage as "launchpad" of course deflected the Ascent engine exhaust horizontally. But you already know this, so your "question" is merely specious and unnecessary. Since, the original point was and is still valid:

The height and arrangement of the upper engine, and combined with the lower portion of the spacecraft, resulted in the deflection of the exhaust gases in a manner that would NOT allow them to have "sandblasted" (your words) the flag.



As a matter of fact, they had placed the ALSEP a distance away so it wouldn't get damaged by the dust kicked up by the ascent of the LM.


There were minor bits of debris and detritus, and ALSEP was situated to be clear of any foreign impingement, yes. The bits that were sent moving from the ascent engine exhaust were associated with the spacecraft itself....even looks like a bit of its mylar reflective film was torn loose, too.

Apollo 17:



Apollo 16:



Apollo 15:



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The table I posted was called "TABLE 1 Command Module Cabin Temperatures in K (F) Measured at the Inlet to the Heat Exchanger" . At the lowest point Apollo 13 reads 58F.

Your table is "TABLE 4 System Parameters during Apollo 13". One of the Parameters in Table 4 is called "Cabin Temperature". At the lowest point reads 43F.


You continue to miss my point. You posted a table without linking to its source, making it impossible to verify that you have not censored it for your own purposes. I provided examples of two tables, both of which qualify that the temperature may have dropped to 43 degrees Fahrenheit. The reason that this was couched in these terms is that the cabin temperature was not being monitored when the instruments were powered down. Although the T&C requirement to provide adequate links to cited material specifically applies to copyrighted material, it is certainly bad form to post even public domain material without adequate without proper attribution. I submit that you have been intentionally posting material that you have censored, and are not posting proper links to prevent this from being discovered.

Exhibit A:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exhibit B:



Exhibit C:



lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, as to hot dogs:

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Although you might prefer:

www.eatmedaily.com...

As for why there was condensation at 43 degrees Fahrenheit, bear in mind that the cabin pressure in the CM was around 5 psi, whereas the "standard" atmospheric pressure at sea level is around 15 psi. Water vapor condenses at higher temperatures under lower atmospheric pressures:

www.chemguide.co.uk...

Please be advised that any material you post without proper attribution or link will result in the post being brought to the attention of the moderators. I really don't want to annoy them like that, so please play nice.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

The height and arrangement of the upper engine, and combined with the lower portion of the spacecraft, resulted in the deflection of the exhaust gases in a manner that would NOT allow them to have "sandblasted" (your words) the flag.



As a matter of fact, they had placed the ALSEP a distance away so it wouldn't get damaged by the dust kicked up by the ascent of the LM.


There were minor bits of debris and detritus, and ALSEP was situated to be clear of any foreign impingement, yes. The bits that were sent moving from the ascent engine exhaust were associated with the spacecraft itself....even looks like a bit of its mylar reflective film was torn loose, too.




The two videos (one was a duplicate) that you posted have simply proven my point.
One can clearly see the dust immediately around the LM getting effected by thrust.
We see debris flying at all directions, towards the ground, towards the sky, etc.
Since the flag is a distance away, the exhaust would directly hit it as the craft goes up into the air.

Here BellComm states regarding the protection of the ALSEP:


Dont you think they took in consideration the the lower stage?
Of course they did.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The two videos (one was a duplicate) that you posted have simply proven my point.


Yes, whilst searching for the Apollo 16 liftoff, I accidentally copy/pasted the same YouTube code for the previous one. Apollo 16 video below - - - but first, the tiny amount of debris shown in all three examples surely do not "prove" your point. Your "point" was that the flag should have been "sandblasted".

While there may have been some Lunar regolith particles located on the upper surface of the lower stage (Descent Module), they would have only been there due to the activities of the Astronauts, on their EVAs. Such as during ingress, and any dirt that had clung to the exterior of their suits, sample bags, tool etc, being dislodged and remaining up on the top surfaces.

Your initial, long-ago claim that the flag should have been "sandblasted" was done intentionally, it seems, to infer that the Ascent engine would have significantly affected the Lunar surface regolith during its brief period of time at proximity to the ground.

As shown in the videos, not only was the amount of debris minor, the engine thrust condition itself was removed within a second or less, as the vehicle departed the area. Thus, no "sandblasting" of anything.

In the case of the ALSEP it was a precision device, and it was desired that it be kept as free as possible from debris of any kind....since n one was left behind after lift-off to clean it later.

Apollo 16 Lift-Off:


(The comments on this video indicate the abject level of ignorance that still prevails, sadly)



One can clearly see the dust immediately around the LM getting effected by thrust.
We see debris flying at all directions, towards the ground, towards the sky, etc.


Very minimal amounts of debris, chaotic in their trajectories, but that is not unusual, nor unexpected. And, very, very brief duration. Exactly what you expect in a vacuum.



Since the flag is a distance away, the exhaust would directly hit it as the craft goes up into the air.


Yes, and as you said........the flag is a distance away....!!

When they mounted the flag on Apollo 11, they must have thought it'd be neat to do it within the view of the DAC mounted in the LM window.



It has long been thought that due to this proximity, the thrust from the ascent engine did indeed topple the flag pole.

Subsequent missions erected the flag farther away. Anyone with a science background in gas propagation (or even just common sense and life experience) knows that the pressure and force exerted by expanding gases diminish with distance.

Now, it's hard to find example of every video, perhaps many of them just haven't been uploaded to YT...(but, might still be accessible at the ALSJ). Here, Apollo 15 (looking out the LM window, no flag in view -- because it was placed elsewhere). The appearance of the debris when seen against a different background (the Lunar surface, compared to the black sky) shows that the black sky gives a somewhat exaggerated impression of the debris. In the LRV camera videos, as well....the debris is further exaggerated because those bits that come towards the camera go out of focus, and thus look larger and more imposing than they actually are:




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Was that Jim Lovell who put his hand in the pantry to get the frankfurters and he said it... wait for it...


I recall that we went to get some hot dogs one day and it was like reaching into the freezer for
them, for the food."



lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...


DJW001:
I submit that you have been intentionally posting material that you have censored, and are not posting proper links to prevent this from being discovered.



DJW001:
Please be advised that any material you post without proper attribution or link will result in the post being brought to the attention of the moderators. I really don't want to annoy them like that, so please play nice.


Let's get back to the hot dogs now. So where is he getting his hotdogs from? Why was it described "like reaching into a freezer". Stop evading.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Its impolite to ask questions not related to the post.


But since you posted the extract in the post clearly my question WAS related to the post.


Basically, from your question, I get the impression you either didnt understand my post, or you really didnt read it.


irrelevant - it was a simple question about your beliefs about the document - answering it is not predicated on anything on my part.


So explain what your issue is with the document in relation to my post, if you want to engage in a meaningful debate.


My issue is that you have not saidn why you consider it factual and relevant to the moon landing hoax.

Glad to have cleared that up for you, and I look forward to your answer.

edit on 6-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Let's get back to the hot dogs now. So where is he getting his hotdogs from? Why was it described "like reaching into a freezer". Stop evading.


You just posted a photo of the food locker in the CM where he got the hot dogs. What, exactly, is your problem with that? Now... please post a link to the source of the chart you posted.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


My issue is that you have not saidn why you consider it factual and relevant to the moon landing hoax.

Glad to have cleared that up for you, and I look forward to your answer.


Yes, you cleared that up nicely.
I now know for certain you didnt understand my post(s)

Lets me summarize the four posts.

The purpose of these posts where to show the infiltration of the CIA in NASA.
S.J. in his earlier posts, provided such evidence as well.
In my posts, these particular elements of the CIA were connected to the Kennedy assassination,
including Lee Harvey Oswald himself! The same Kennedy that announced the moon race. The same Kennedy who was considering postponing the moon landing in favor to work together with the Russians to end the cold war.

A 'Company' of Lies and Blackmail
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post is introduced that the aerospace wing of the military industrial complex was
considered behind the Kennedy Assassination.
In this post we also find out that Lee Harvey Oswald was offered a job affiliated with NASA.

A 'Company' of Lies and Blackmail continued
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post you read about other persons affiliated with Oswald, also leaving to work in the aerospace field for NASA or NASA around the same time period.



"They're all gone," he said. "Anyone who ever had any connection with Lee Oswald left the Reily Company within a few weeks after Oswald did." He laid a sheet of paper in front of me. "Here are the names and the new jobs."

I glanced down at the list. One name jumped out at me immediately: Dante Marachini (sic). He had begun work at the Reily Coffee Company on exactly the same day as Oswald. Several weeks after Oswald's departure, Marachini (sic) also left the company and began life anew at the Chrysler Aerospace Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), on the eastern side of New Orleans.

I then noticed that Alfred Claude, who hired Oswald for Reily, had also gone to work for the Chrysler Aerospace Division.

Then I saw that John Branyon, who had worked with Oswald at the coffee company, had left for a job at NASA.

At just about the same time, Emmett Barbee (sic -- Barbe), Oswald's immediate boss at Reily, left the coffee company and also inaugurated a new career with NASA (Garrison, 134-5).

He also found that James Lewallen, Ferrie's onetime apartment mate, was working "for Boeing at NASA" (



ready to go down the rabbit hole?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post I provide some information about the Torbitt document.




"Nomenclature of an Assasination Cabal" by William Torbitt (pseudonym) is an insiders look at the hierarchy and flow chart from the top planners down to the mechanics(shooters) of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas Texas. This document has served as a "skeleton key" to many of the researchers into that ignominious event.


And I state



I never heard about this.
And I never knew that during the Apollo, researchers were already linking the Kennedy assassination to NASA.
In other words, we are seeing a smooth transition from one famous conspiracy to another. Incredible, we actually have two conspiracies to contend with as they seem to be inexorably linked.


At this point, I have not used the Torbitt document as a source. I only provide it as a source for anyone who wants to dig into the connection between the Kennedy Assassination and NASA.

So you asking me about the validity of the Torbitt document is and was premature. I have not myself looked into it to draw any conclusions.

But, the highlights of the document are compelling and related to NASA/Apollo and the Kennedy assassination. For example, the Torbitt document states that Werner von Braun headed a division known as DISC or DISCO. Some type of security/intelligence organization for basically NASA. Is that true? I didnt get into it, but what I can tell it is considered a military acronym:
www.acronym-guide.com...
www.globalacronyms.com...
www.dss.mil...

You see, could this arm of NASA threaten anyone who talked about Apollo? Was NASA's budget funding secret sinister organizations?


going down the rabbit hole
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post, we are linking Nazi's to the Kennedy Assassination.
The same Nazi's who are affiliated with NASA and the Apollo program.

So in conclusion, we have a web between the CIA (who brought over NAZIs to work in various fields of science related to the military industrial complex, politics, and education), and those same NAZI's working in aersopace, and the military industrial complex, to NASA and Apollo.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Let's get back to the hot dogs now. So where is he getting his hotdogs from? Why was it described "like reaching into a freezer". Stop evading.


You just posted a photo of the food locker in the CM where he got the hot dogs. What, exactly, is your problem with that? Now... please post a link to the source of the chart you posted.



I found the chart no problem. First page of google.
SJ stated where you can get it.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I found the chart no problem. First page of google.
SJ stated where you can get it.


I thought I found the chart too... but it was slightly different than the one Sayanara posted. If you have found his source, why not provide a link?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I found the chart no problem. First page of google.
SJ stated where you can get it.


I thought I found the chart too... but it was slightly different than the one Sayanara posted. If you have found his source, why not provide a link?


Are you saying there are differences in the charts?
What differences?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

Now, it's hard to find example of every video, perhaps many of them just haven't been uploaded to YT...(but, might still be accessible at the ALSJ). Here, Apollo 15 (looking out the LM window, no flag in view -- because it was placed elsewhere). The appearance of the debris when seen against a different background (the Lunar surface, compared to the black sky) shows that the black sky gives a somewhat exaggerated impression of the debris. In the LRV camera videos, as well....the debris is further exaggerated because those bits that come towards the camera go out of focus, and thus look larger and more imposing than they actually are:






Apollo 15. The one that supposedly launched 26 July?
And the film you provided was made on 17 or 19 July??
How does that work?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What the heck are you talking about, now???


And the film you provided was made on 17 or 19 July??


Because the video shows the short test shot of the camera that was conducted BEFORE the mission??

Tell us.....have you ever used a film movie camera? Heck, it's not much different from a videotape, in fact.

You shoot some footage, then stop the camera. You set it aside, and then days later take it out and resume shooting, right where you stopped the previous day. How hard is this to understand?

Here, a line drawing exploded view showing the DAC, and one of the film magazines unattached, for illustration:



They could carry more than one film magazine to be used in the camera!!



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


See that wasn't so hard.

Of course I didnt' ask you about it being a source - I asked you about its relevance to the moon hoax theory.

You use it as part of justification for believing other information about the various conspiracies you think exist that you link to the moon hoax - THAT is the relevance you think it has to the moon hoax theory.

And you haven't specifically said why you think it is factual - but the link to the other conspiracy theories explains that well enough for me.

Well done....eventually!



edit on 7-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you saying there are differences in the charts?
What differences?


Have you been paying no attention whatsoever? Please observe carefully:



Sayanara's chart. Note, among other things, how closely cropped it is at the bottom!

My chart:



My chart, or rather the chart I was able to find and link to.

Incidentally, you said that Sayanara said where he got the chart. Where does he say that? All he has done is evade, presumably because his source contains the footnote about Apollo 13 as well.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you saying there are differences in the charts?
What differences?


Have you been paying no attention whatsoever?


Have you not been paying attention that I have been involved in other conversations?




Please observe carefully:



Sayanara's chart. Note, among other things, how closely cropped it is at the bottom!

My chart:



My chart, or rather the chart I was able to find and link to.

Incidentally, you said that Sayanara said where he got the chart. Where does he say that? All he has done is evade, presumably because his source contains the footnote about Apollo 13 as well.


I still would like to know what the differences in the chart are?
They seem pretty much identical.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 643  644  645    647  648  649 >>

log in

join