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: 93
377
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeinthematrix
I've seen White's videos, and they are really good. The moon crater, the flag...those things are crystal clear: a HOAX.

Thats a definitive statement. No dust on the landing pad's is the most undeniable proof. The US/NASA fooled the world using the "new technology" called TV.

The movie/mix theme was a great job. Kubrick is a master. Fooled an entire generation. But not anymore.


Or, if you dont want to read 90+ pages, answer this little question:
why does dust billow, and a big stone if you throw it not?

Also
FoosM: Film was expensive? Thank you very much for giving me the first laugh of today




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Also
FoosM: Film was expensive? Thank you very much for giving me the first laugh of today


Careful, Foos didn't say that. Someone else did (I'm not sure who), and I think they were referring to the film used on the flights (I'm assuming as a reason they didn't bracket their shots).

This is why Foos' method of posting without proper formatting is so annoying. He needs a mod to "remind" him to format his posts.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Ooooops you are right.
Sorry, my mistake.
Its not any less funny though, if you compare it to the cost of say, a Saturn V



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


OK....no more hints!! After the post by CHRLZ, I was going to sit back with much anticipation, and enjoy the show (if the 'deniers' ever bother to attempt an answer....should deserve some popcorn, at least).

I chuckled at the 'trap' he set, for the obvious answers that most of us know, likely aren't going to be so 'obvious' to the 'deniers'.

Now, to be fair....will repeat your helpful 'clue' ( almost zen-like in its structure (?) ) again, because...well...we'll see how they run with it:


...why does dust billow, and a big stone if you throw it not?


[edit on 5 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Lets raise the stakes here on this particle debate. I am happy to play the role of unbiased arbitrator ( if that is the correct term) given that i am probably one of the top particle scientists in australia on the basis of publication output and patents in the last 5 years. Because i am a sydney lad ( grew up in lapa of all places), i have a soft spot for JW. So i am happy to help you guys (ie. Hoax supporters) out a bit here if you have a decent go.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by pezza]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Excellent. The opening thesis from the "Anti-Hoax" camp is as follows: The radiation environment in space is harsher than on the surface of the Earth. This is due in part to the absence of an atmosphere that can buffer the ionizing radiation and in part because the Earth's magnetosphere traps charged particles from the solar wind. However, the effects of radiation depend upon the energy of the particles and how and where this ionizing radiation interacts with the human body. Because all particle phenomenon are ultimately probabilistic, the flux of the radiation and length of time of exposure are critical in determining the possible damage the radiation can cause. Hence, radiation can be considered to be cumulative in it's effects, although even very large or protracted doses will not necessarily have predictable effects across populations. Given these facts, it is both possible and likely that astronauts were able to cross the radiation environment of cis-lunar space with little or no harm.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Can you find photos: AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5858?
Maybe its there, I just dont see them.

Or maybe those famous footprint photos: AS11-40-5876 to AS11-40-5880
Because I cant locate them either.


"I'm speechless", as they say.

Here you go, FoosM. For *thumbnails* of AS11-40-5850 to ..58, look here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

That lets you see the sequence. Why, if you SCROLL DOWN, you'll even find the others. Amazing stuff, "this Inter-web", hey? I'd have to note that site has been posted here at ATS MANY times.

For high resolution copies, there are many ways, but here's one of my favorites - it's a bit of a slow process, but well worth it - may I suggest you BOOKMARK and LEARN HOW TO USE this site:
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Now it takes a bit longer this way, but normally it will be the highest resolution, closest-to-original-source file (ie directly scanned from the original film, not a 'dupe'. Willing to learn?

Now, what you have to do is this:

1. Click on the Menu at the top, in this sequence - Find, Search, Mission-Roll-Frame.




CHRLZ, what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by lifeinthematrix
I've seen White's videos, and they are really good. The moon crater, the flag...those things are crystal clear: a HOAX.

Thats a definitive statement. No dust on the landing pad's is the most undeniable proof. The US/NASA fooled the world using the "new technology" called TV.

The movie/mix theme was a great job. Kubrick is a master. Fooled an entire generation. But not anymore.


Or, if you dont want to read 90+ pages, answer this little question:
why does dust billow, and a big stone if you throw it not?

Also
FoosM: Film was expensive? Thank you very much for giving me the first laugh of today


What are you talking about?

Oh I see, you found out that I didnt say it.


[edit on 5-6-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Hey, Foos is back! Time for attempt number 4:


Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd


2. How could the astronauts know what to expect in terms of lighting? Its not like they had been on the moon before.


We had unmanned landers on the surface taking pictures before Apollo. Also, it isn't hard to measure the amount of light on the moon's surface by telescope.
------
I'm speechless.



What are you "speechless" about? I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Why are you "speechless"? What specifically is wrong with that statement?

I'm not going to let you ignore this, I'll keep reposting it until I get an answer.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd



They didn't have a quota of pictures to take. You seem to be implying they HAD to take a certain number of pictures, when it isn't remotely true. They took pictures when they had the chance. There was no "fumbling" because there were literally only a couple settings to be concerned about. Once they got to a spot, they'd set the shutter speed and aperture, then start clicking away, just estimating focus because of the immense dof they got. They shot a lot of panoramas, which are 8-10 shots in only a few seconds. If you spent any time with a camera, you'd know it isn't very hard.
----
8 to 10 shots in 3 to 4 seconds... right. Whatever.


Of all the hoax arguments, this has to be the silliest.
---
Well with your logic, everything can seem silly


BTW, I meant to post this earlier, but there was so much stupidity in your posts, it kinda got lost.

I pulled out my old Canon AE1, with a manual film advance, and was able to take 8 shots in 4 seconds. I can do at least double that with an auto advance.

Foos, you should really consider picking up a camera before you make a bigger fool of yourself.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
We need to compile a list of all the unanswered questions the HBs have ignored.
Not answered unsatisfactorily, but completely ignored.

It would make a great new thread (although it would be awfully long.]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeinthematrix
I've seen White's videos, and they are really good. The moon crater, the flag...those things are crystal clear: a HOAX.

Thats a definitive statement. No dust on the landing pad's is the most undeniable proof. The US/NASA fooled the world using the "new technology" called TV.

The movie/mix theme was a great job. Kubrick is a master. Fooled an entire generation. But not anymore.


Good summary of the situation. And yes, those clean as a whistle landing pad's are a clear give away.



New research has revealed the seemingly gentle touchdowns of the six Apollo Lunar Modules (LMs) on the moon between 1969 and 1972 were actually incredibly violent events.

The Lunar Module's descent engine blew out high-velocity lunar particles that strafed the landscape.


You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.



"Depending on the actual velocity they may have gone halfway around the moon or more. In most cases they would only travel until they hit a natural terrain feature, such as a crater rim or a mountain range."


Or landing pads



"New methods were developed to measure the shadows of the LM during its descent in the old Apollo landing videos," Metzger said. "From measuring these shadows, they have determined the shape of the blowing dust clouds under the LM. This is one of our main sources of experimental data on the ejection of soil by rocket exhausts."

The Apollo footage also shows that the blast from the LM engine gases were also powerful enough to move rocks up to 6 inches [15 centimeters] in size.


Really? And yet no crater?




Study of the Surveyor camera and mechanical scoop returned to Earth by the Apollo 12 astronauts revealed it had been sandblasted by lunar dust.

"There were what looked liked permanent shadows cast into the Surveyor," Metzger said. "Cosmic radiation in the lunar environment had darkened the surface of the Surveyor and then the spray of fine dust from the Apollo 12 LM removed that darkening wherever the spray could reach."

This same scouring process could easily damage the sensitive surfaces of future lunar hardware and fine lunar dust could also be forced into the interiors of surface equipment causing vital parts to jam.







"When the support collar was removed from the Surveyor camera, a small sample of soil and dust particles were found inside, where they had been injected through a small inspection hole that happened to be facing in the direction of the LM," Metzger said.

Such fine dust, around 10 microns in size, makes up the bulk of what was kicked up by the LM, but larger particles around 60 microns wide (the size of a very fine sand grain also made their mark on Surveyor 3 in the form of hundreds of micro-craters








"The paint on the Surveyor camera shroud was fractured in a mud-cracking pattern," Metzger told SPACE.com. "Each intersection of cracks was at the location where a tiny particle had impacted, drilling a tiny cylindrical hole down into the paint and causing the fractures to spread out from there like spider-legs in a car windshield."

The particles that caused this damage are estimated to have been traveling at around 1,300 feet per second. The figure which ties in well with the expected velocity of particles blasted across the lunar surface by the LM engine just before touchdown. (Bullets exit a rifle at between 600 and 5,000 feet per second, or 180 and 1,500 meters per second.)
www.space.com...

unbelievable




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



You would think some of that would have hit the struts of the landing pads and would have collected in those pads.


Where would this heavy dust have come from? Describe the direction of the soil as the engine approaches the ground.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
And please, if there are any lurkers out there who do not understand why there is not a deep crater (as opposed to an area of scour) underneath the LM, post a note to the thread and someone will be happy to go over it with you. Using actual numbers and derivations. It is worthless to spend any time explaining it again to Foos becuase he is militantly ignorant on the subject (as well as others).



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Oops, i should of mentioned that my expertise is in micron and nano size particles, as opposed to sub atomic particles. Thats out of my league.

So the areas that my expertise covers is dust movement, hydrodynamics/aerodynamics of particle motion, particle-particle interactions, particle-surface interactions, soil science etc etc

again, happy to adjudicate the discusion on dust movement if this is chosen as the best evidence in support of the hoax. But going off the last 50 pages, it seems to be radiation.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pezza
reply to post by DJW001
 


again, happy to adjudicate the discusion on dust movement if this is chosen as the best evidence in support of the hoax. But going off the last 50 pages, it seems to be radiation.


I'm afraid your expertise will be of no use, unfortunately. For two reasons:

1. The answer, as I'm sure you already realize (and some posters were hinting at previously), is a simple exercise in vector mechanics. And I'm not sure about elsewhere, but where I'm from, vm was always covered in the first few weeks of intro to physics.


2. You'll never get a straight response from the HBs to critique.

Anyway, a quick and dirty explanation as to why there is little (not no) dust on the landing pads of the LM.

As the LM was descending, the exhaust pressure began hitting the surface of the moon. Once the exhaust became strong enough to affect the regolith, there was only one direction for the "dust" to go, and that was radially out from underneath the engine nozzle, in a 360 degree circle. Since there was constant pressure from the engine above, there could be very little "bounce" off the surface. Now some of the particles could have impacted each other, or, if like with Apollo 11, the engine was late being shut down, the remaining regolith could have been blown against the pads. But by then there would not have been enough to show up very well. Which is pretty much what we see on the pictures.

IOW, all the dust was pushed out sideways from underneath the LM. There was no way for dust, soil or rocks to get up and into the top of the pads while the LM was yet to touch the surface.

Like I said, quick and dirty before off to bed. I'm sure others will be around to refine my explanation. But like I said, this is simple physics. So that guarantees the HBs won't get it.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
...
IOW, all the dust was pushed out sideways from underneath the LM. There was no way for dust, soil or rocks to get up and into the top of the pads while the LM was yet to touch the surface.

Like I said, quick and dirty before off to bed. I'm sure others will be around to refine my explanation.


Yep, just call me an 'other'..


While that is all correct, I think it is worthwhile reinforcing the reason dust does not billow upwards, and to make one other VITALLY IMPORTANT point... First, to reinforce Tom's notes...

1. NO AIR.
In an atmosphere, the exhaust gases of a landing, descending jet/rocket engine mix in with the surrounding atmospheric gases and create a turbulent 'maelstrom' of down-, side- and up-drafts. Those air movements will puff the dust upwards.

In a vacuum, the ONLY thing that can move a particle, is another one hitting it!. That can ONLY be either:

- molecules of exhaust gas/combustion products (but there wasn't much (in fact, by then, none - see item 2!!) as it was 1/6 gravity, andthe gases dissipate very rapidly in a vacuum.

- another dust particle hitting it.

And of course all the exhaust stuff is heading downwards, so there is nothing to hit the particles upwards, nor support them if they do go upwards. The only thing that will make them go up is a recoil or bounce effect - anyone seen dust bounce, much?

This phenomenon can be seen in the landing videos - watch the dust heading straight outwards as they near the surface. NOT up.

But there's another HUGE factor here!!!

2. The engine ISN"T ON as the lander touches down anyway!
The astronauts shut down the engine as the contact probes hit the surface, or very soon after, and the lander simply fell the last metre or so. In 1/6 gravity, that is a perfectly sensible thing to do - the *inertia* of the craft plus the weak gravity, means it falls quite gently and slowly. That's how the LM was ENGINEERED to land.

So even if there was some mechanism that would 'billow' the dust upwards, and there ISN'T, the engines had stopped a couple seconds earlier anyway.

I'd have to observe that if that if is one of your favorites, then I strongly suggest you find another conspiracy to love.... and that you always have a friend watching when ever you see a 'good deal'... I have this bridge for sale...


I mean seriously, hoax believers.. THINK.

It's the MOON. NO air. Very little gravity.

If something looks odd, try to reason it out, on that basis.

And if you still just don't get it... well, now you know why you were *told* to concentrate when at school.

You should have listened.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
No takers?
I'll do it anyway. at my leisure.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by pezza
reply to post by DJW001
 


again, happy to adjudicate the discusion on dust movement if this is chosen as the best evidence in support of the hoax. But going off the last 50 pages, it seems to be radiation.


I'm afraid your expertise will be of no use, unfortunately. For two reasons:



will be on standby then.

I can also comment on the possibility of the particle behavior being simulated and doctored into the live or prerecorded video stream. If i was to do it i would use a technique called DEM (discrete element method). Some here probably know about it. It is basically code written to simulate and keep track of the motion of a large population of particles. For those interested, there is a trial version of Realflow 4.0 on the net which can be used to recreate possibly any moon scene involving dust/dirt/particles being moved around. Fun stuff for both the keen film maker and avid scientist.

FYI: The founding works on DEM are in a paper by Cundall and Strack 1979. I am not sure what could have been used before this to simulate particle behaviour for film effects.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by pezza]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Good to have pro's on board. We better keep the discussion in the stuff that was available in the 60's thought.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join