Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

More evidence of plumes during testing.
Also note the engine bell glowing when it gets hot.

jump to 4:22


LM tests done in atmospheric(vacuum) chambers.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock

 

Another lie:

...and since the astronauts could not tell the difference between moon rock and petrified wood..

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The "story" of that particular artifact has also been covered at great length in this very thread.

To re-cap:

The block of petrified wood was NOT "given" to anyone by any Astronaut claiming it as a sample from the Moon. It was given by the Apollo 11 crew on their goodwill visit to the Netherlands.....but, it was a known piece of petrified wood then, to all concerned at the time.

It was discovered after the death of the Prime Minister, in his home. The only people who claimed it to be a "moon rock" were those (ignorant) people who found it, and just assumed it to be. A terribly embarrassing mistake for those involved....since none of them bothered to verify its authenticity in any way.

And....For The Record .....gifts of Lunar samples to foreign dignitaries and nations consisted of tiny grains of sand, encased in Lucite plastic, and mounted on a decorative plaque with stand.

This petrified wood was about the size of a Human fist, and was not encased in anything.

edit on Sun 13 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

But you present news articles too, why are yours valid and the one I present false information.. ?

And you have to think about your source.. using Bias U.S mainstream media. If anything your argument is that neither news articles can be trusted, which also suggest we shouldn't trust mainstream sources for information on the moon landings either.. If anything you have proven the only important thing is perception.


What is this troll nonsense! Revealing the hoax landing is not trolling ! This is trolling

www.guardian.co.uk...

I wonder if the U.S will try and get in on China's mission, like in latter years they did with the Russians to see how it is done!

If only grains of moon dust were give to geologists to test and Nasa keeps the bulk of it under lock and key, then those samples sent to geologists and the small gifts to nations around the world could have been lunar meteorite fragments.

All this lost and found moon rocks business is an operation to replace old fake samples with newly attained real moon rock.

You like to make these claims. Do you like to prove those also? Or would you like to admid that you're just making stuff up without any evidence?

reply to post by PsykoOps


What evidence would you accept?

1)The failure to get 'back' to the moon or go any further than a few hundred miles into space since the 1970's
2) Neil Armstrong telling us we didn't go to the moon. In less than cryptic messages!
3) All the evidence to finally settle it has been destroyed and digitally remastered ; Faked.
4) Astronauts press conference, guilt.
5) U.S 9/11 proves mass hoaxes are perpetrated, human cost irrelevant to achieve set goals.
6) This link has some great evidence www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...
7) Lunar rover at actual speed www.youtube.com...

There are thousands of other bits of evidence..

reply to post by mockrock

What evidence would you accept?

Eyewitness testimony from those involved. Physical artifacts, such as scraps of film that have been prepared for matte work. Photographs of the sets the film was allegedly shot on. Astrophotographs showing the Apollo craft lurking behind in orbit. Verifiable copies of memos, accounting books, personnel records. A detailed chart showing how the operation was organized, and who was responsible for each phase. A technical explanation of how the radio transmissions were beamed from the Moon. Identifying the exact missions that placed the laser retro-reflectors on the Moon. Tape recordings or other documentation of the secret negotiations necessary to convince the Soviets not to expose the operation. Detailed technical descriptions of how such lunar sample idiosyncrasies as KREEP, "zap pits," Neptunium, armalcolite, and so forth, accompanied by a list of the laboratories where this synthesis was done and records from these laboratories proving that it was done. There is actually a very long list, but Moon Hoax propagandists have never succeeded in producing even one piece of evidence.

1)The failure to get 'back' to the moon or go any further than a few hundred miles into space since the 1970's

Not only irrelevant, but simply wrong. There is a network of satellites around just about every planet in the Solar System but Venus. Sending men back to the Moon simply has not been a priority.

2) Neil Armstrong telling us we didn't go to the moon. In less than cryptic messages!

Neil Armstrong has never claimed, or even hinted, that he did not go to the Moon. Some people try to twist his words, or imagine that he is leaving cryptic clues, but I can assure you it is all in your imagination.

3) All the evidence to finally settle it has been destroyed and digitally remastered ; Faked.

Simply false. There are mountains of documentation, physical artifacts, eyewitness testimony... if that doesn't settle it in your eyes then a first generation recording of some TV broadcasts certainly won't!

4) Astronauts press conference, guilt.

In psychology, this is called "projection." You are ascribing your own feelings to others.

5) U.S 9/11 proves mass hoaxes are perpetrated, human cost irrelevant to achieve set goals.

9/11 proves that buildings fall straight down when you crash a jet into them. No single conspiracy theory has ever been proven (including the "official story!") so you cannot use that to prove anything.

6) This link has some great evidence www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

This site is so full of gross errors that I have always suspected that it was intended as a parody. Check out this "evidence":

Education: The astronauts have no photographic education. They have no idea how to handle a manual camera with exposure time, shutter and sharpness. The astronauts would not be able to make perfect fotos with a Hasselblad 500 EL even on Earth (Wisnewski, p.153).

[How shall this have happened "on the moon"? Not possible].

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

Right... test pilots with degrees in engineering could never figure out how to use a camera after having spent weeks training with it. Brilliant.

7) Lunar rover at actual speed www.youtube.com...

So some YouTube moron sped up some footage. So what?

There are thousands of other bits of evidence..

Point of information: the word "other" implies that you have provided evidence. You have not. You have, as usual, provided a combination of speculation and opinion.

reply to post by FoosM

LM tests done in atmospheric(vacuum) chambers.

Good find! Have a star. The hypergolic fuel does burn bright blue, but whether it would be visible in strong daylight is another matter. In the outside test, the "flame" is much less noticeable. The white "smoke" is probably ammonia mixing with water vapor in the atmosphere. Since there is no atmosphere or water vapor on the Moon, the ammonia would be colorless. There would be no "smoke."

The take away from this video is, as usual, they sure went through a lot of hard work for nothing if they were just going to film the thing on a soundstage anyway.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

LM tests done in atmospheric(vacuum) chambers.

Good find! Have a star. The hypergolic fuel does burn bright blue, but whether it would be visible in strong daylight is another matter. In the outside test, the "flame" is much less noticeable.

However, we know that the background sky is black on the moon.
Now, would you say that particles were leaving the nozzle of the LM?
And so, would the strong sunlight be reflected off those particles?

reply to post by FoosM

However, we know that the background sky is black on the moon.
Now, would you say that particles were leaving the nozzle of the LM?
And so, would the strong sunlight be reflected off those particles?

The exhaust from the ascent stage would consist of hyperexpanding nitrogen and ammonia gas. Both are colorless, and would not reflect the sunlight.

reply to post by FoosM

Now, would you say that particles were leaving the nozzle of the LM?

If you wish to define "particles" to include atoms and molecules? Then, yes "particles" left the nozzle of the LM engine.

Now, if you are able to 'see' atoms or molecules by watching YouTube videos, well then.....you are wasting your talents here. You could earn big money in some laboratory somewhere, with that kind of visual acuity.

reply to post by ProudBird


Guys I know this is your job but when do you give up.. With each generation less people accept the Apollo moon landings.

When is it scheduled to be announced to the public?

The fox documentary was the first stage in getting people used to the hoax, it was designed to see if people were ready.

When China gets to the moon first will NASA be hitching a lift like it currently has to with the Russians..

Taxi ! For NASA.. The organisation that got to the moon in 69, this is just crazy, is this NASA's way of saying we never got to the moon.. are we meant to draw our own conclusions?

reply to post by mockrock


giggle.....

Guys I know this is your job but when do you give up.

The real ones who make it their "job" are the con-artists who push this entire "hoax" nonsense.

With each generation less people accept the Apollo moon landings.

This is an absurd belief, and has no validity nor support in fact.

The fox documentary was the first stage in getting people used to the hoax, it was designed to see if people were ready.

That?? LOL.....from over TEN years ago? BTW...we've had the LRO camera photos, since then.....

"Fox should stick to making cartoons," agreed Marc Norman. "I'm a big fan of The Simpsons!"

....Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped...

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

The Great Moon Hoax


Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax (February 13, 2001)

On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.

Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk.

Problem with falling for that piece of idiocy called a "documentary" is that it relied so heavily on the claims made by Bill Kaysing.

Might want to look him up a bit more....he was a disgruntled employee from one of the Apollo sub-contractors, North American Aviation....and their subsidiary, Rocketdyne. (NAA built the Command Module and the second stage of the Saturn V. Rocketdyne worked on some rocket engines).

Bill Kaysing was NOT an engineer!! Nor was he a scientist. He edited technical manuals, probably because of his degree.....a BA in English!

After his stint in the U.S. Navy, and University education (in English!):

He later worked for a time as a furniture maker, before working at Rocketdyne (a division of North American Aviation and later of Rockwell International), (1956–1963), where Saturn V rocket engines were built. Kaysing was the company's head of technical publications but was not trained as an engineer or scientist.

Bill Kaysing


Ironically, the topic of this thread (the so-called " Young Aussie 'genius' ") also is a vocal *fan* of Kaysing's. Bill Kaysing has been dubbed the "grandfather" of the Moon "hoax" conspiracy (note the date when he left his position at Rocketdyne) and young Aussie "Jarrah White" has proclaimed himself to be the "grandson" of the same "hoax" nonsense and bull spit claims.

After leaving Rocketdyne, Kaysing was becoming more and more angry with the U.S. Government because of the Vietnam situation. He had a friend who was a veteran, and became even more incensed from what he heard. On a sort of a bet, because of what his friend told him, Kaysing was challenged to "make up" a story that could be used to embarrass the U.S. Government.....so, he concocted this "Moon Hoax" baloney.

He made it all up!!! He is even on an audio recording, later in life, admitting it!! You can hear portions of this in certain YouTube videos, but I've had trouble finding them online independent of those.

reply to post by FoosM

jump to 4:22 ....

Ummmm.....no, why not let people watch the entire presentation??

Because, prior to the 4:22 point, the narrator specifically mentions that the test chamber used in the video is not a complete and total vacuum. (Unlike your claim, at the bottom of the post).

He says it was evacuated to the equivalent of 125,000 feet altitude above the Earth's surface. That is not a total vacuum.

125,000 feet works out to just under 24 statute miles. The beginning of "space" is defined at heights well above that. In fact, at 24 miles up, you are still in the stratosphere:

Stratosphere
The layer above the troposphere is the stratosphere. It extends from the tropopause to the stratopause, the upper boundary at about 30 to 33 miles (48 to 53 km) altitude.

Read more.


So....that video is NOT representative of what the Lunar Module Ascent Engine plume would look like in a pure vacuum.

However, for the purposes of that particular test, it was likely deemed sufficient in order to examine the engine operation by the engineers involved, at that stage of development. Later, the vehicles were flown to Earth orbit, and tested again.

Giggle* glottal cough*

And you wonder why more people don't come forward ..? Bill Kaysing is your answer. Here was a person who dared to speak out and in return endured a character assassination plot against him

Even now after his death they still write sneering jibes about him.. I don't think anyone else is going to volunteer for that treatment.. condemned through life and even after death


Such as this site www.clavius.org...

If he spoke such nonsense then why was there a concerted effort to ridicule him.. surely his claims would not even warrant a response.

billkaysing.com...


Why are NASA investing so much money in SEO for sites that support the official version of the Apollo Landings?

reply to post by mockrock

If he spoke such nonsense then why was there a concerted effort to ridicule him.. surely his claims would not even warrant a response.

Most educated and knowledgeable people saw him for the utter fool that he was, and ignored him.

It wasn't until the naive and gullible began to take him seriously that those who had merely laughed at him as a crazy kook had to make the effort to patiently, logically and rationally explain each and every one of his fallacious claims. The ignorants who believed Bill Kaysing were easily duped by his nonsense.....and, it was not difficult to show every instance where he was flat out wrong.

reply to post by ProudBird


But the man you present does not fit..

""The first lesson that comes to my mind is my dad's unrelenting questioning of those in authority. As Albert Einstein said, "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth,” my father fervently believed people need to ask questions, to think for themselves, and not let themselves be swayed by the influence of advertising, false doctrines, or unproven reports of any kind. He also believed life was a gift to be enjoyed to the fullest…summarized by way he always signed his letters: Love, Joy, and Action.""

billkaysing.com...

He sounds like the personification of the American Dream.

reply to post by mockrock


He was applauded for some of his other writings. I guess you could call him "idealistic", perhaps.

However, when I said "utter fool" it was specifically addressing his inanity regarding Apollo. He jumped the shark on that, and it's evident in his self-published book, for which his main"claim to fame" is derived.

And once again, it is important to point out that he was spurred to that by his own biases, and actual ignorance of the science and technical aspects (he "self-educated", it seems, based solely on reading of the technical manuals and journals that he edited for publication). He was a layperson attempting to wrap his head around subjects that were well above his intellectual capacity....as is evident in his many mistakes and misconceptions.

And, also to recall that his personal "vendetta" was spurred by his disillusionment with the late 1960s, politically -- particularly the Vietnam conflict. He saw the U.S. Government as the "bad guy", and decided to concoct his diatribe in the futile attempt to discredit them. Regardless, apparently, of Party affiliation, since Johnson was a Democrat, and Nixon a Republican.

The Vietnam debacle was the linchpin to his anger, and he probably felt he "knew" more about the space program than warfare....so, he chose to write about that. Again, he made so many absurd claims and assertions (no stars in photographs, etc) that he only managed to built a legacy of "ill-informed kook" for himself.

reply to post by ProudBird


But all the evidence is here..

www.aulis.com...

He was right ! Brave man who will one day be regarded as a hero.

reply to post by mockrock

But all the evidence is here..

www.aulis.com...

The "aulis" website (and Jack White) is nothing more than the continuing badly-done rantings of the photographs being somehow "wrong".

Every claim in that website can be directly refuted with proper documentation, science and education.

Just a few (old, archived) discussion points


I doubt even "JW" is silly enough to refer to the "aulis" website!!

(...does anyone know?? Any "Jarrah White" fans who are so keen on his videos??)

Coincidence, that "Jack" and "Jarrah" share the same last name? Hey, let's start a "conspiracy"!!

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Guys I know this is your job but when do you give up..

Really?

how do you know that?

Or is it just another diversionary ad hominem attack by someone conned by the hoax industry who doesn't like that people who have facts and verifiable evidence continue to get in the way of the fame and fortune that should be yours??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The Hoax Industry.. All the info is free.. Where as the Apollo Hoax industry cost somewhat more..