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: 95
377
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


Here's the transcript history.nasa.gov...





It would be nice if you actually read the transcripts that you expect us to read. Just prior to your posts:

04 17 46 32 CC Roger. On your next depressurization, it's
acceptable to use the overhead hatch dump valve
in addition to or instead of the forward hatch
dump valve to speed up the depressurization of the cabin. I have a T13 update for you, and if
you could, sometime here, give us P00 and DATA:
we'll uplink you a new CSM state vector. Over.

I'm really getting tired of doing all your reading for you.




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Good job on the over dramatic response(attack) on an "opinion"
thumbs up!
.
"'It was too dangerous' has to be one of the dumbest, most grasping at straws "REASONS" out there Sort it out."
.
I was giving a reason??
Reasons for what?... It was to dangerous, so there was no apollo missions???.. You got that from my post? My previous post was in the NON HOAX favor!!! (in other words, your side).
..
"I guess people who climb mountains are a hoax, because it's been proven through the number of fatalities how dangerous it is and let's face it,"
You serious?...and I'm "grasping"??????
.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kyleplatinum
 


It's wasn't aimed specifically at you or I would have used the 'reply to' button

I wrote it in a rush this morning before work, it was a general statement to people who do say that they couldn't have gone because it's too dangerous, which there are plenty of sadly. Reading your post reminded me of this, sorry I should have made it clearer it was not aimed at you bud. As it was directly after your post it sure looked that way I guess, I was rushing to get out the house and didn't think. Sorry dude



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
arguments posed by:

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.


-------
What direction would soil or dust radiate as the LM was creating a crater?
And as demonstrated, by NASA themselves, there should have been a crater.

Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).
And all the way down till after touchdown we can see regolith being displaced.
So there was enough soil below them to create a crater.

Another point is, in order for the regolith to even travel it would have to elevate above the ground. If it didnt, if it rolled across the ground, we should have seen radiating lines emanating from below the LM. Where is there evidence of soil displacement and build up in the photographic record or in the videos?




no soil disturbance.



Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Tomblvd
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.



So why does NASA disagree with you?



An example was the installation of frangible probes on the base of each foot pad to tell the crew the lander was a meter and a half above the surface and to switch off the descent motor. If the motor were still firing when the craft touched down, the engine nozzle would be damaged, landing stability might be affected, and the ascent stage might be impaired by debris kicked up by the engine exhaust.13
history.nasa.gov...

debris kicked up by the engine exhaust

debris kicked up by the engine exhaust

However



Another factor that influenced the landing-performance analysis was the desire of the Apollo 11 (LM-5) crewmen to have the option of thrusting the descent engine until the footpads had touched down, rather than initiating engine shutdown following lunar- surface-probe contact. This option resulted in additional analysis, and statistical re- sults were obtained for both the "probe" mode and the "pad"mode type of LM landing,
The probe mode is the primary procedure for LM touchdown and consists of descent-engine shutdown initiation follow- ing probe contact but before footpad contact. The pad mode is considered a backup landing mode in which engine thrust is terminated following footpad contact.


The contradictions within NASA is mind boggling.




Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Tomblvd
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.


Sorry, but it has been shown in the videos and transcripts that the majority of the engines of the LM shutdown after the pads hit the surface. That would mean, displacement of the regolith should have collected in some form in the pads, but also shredding of the foil due to the sandblasting and heat from the engines!



"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.)



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


To answer your question on the foot pads lets discuss thrust in a vacuum The engine nozzle was 54 inches across meaning it had an area of 2300 square inches. ander's descent engine was capable of outputting a maximum of 10,500 lbs of thrust it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. so are thrust of 3000 lbs therefore generated a pressure of only about 1.3 pounds per square inch. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow stream, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, exhaust gases expand rapidly radially outward once exiting the engine nozzle, which lowers the pressure even more.

Now for the dust in a vacuum the disturbance of dust would be below the rocket engine. And the reason why is simple with no atmosphere any dust kicked into the air would drop right back down at 1/6th gravity. Since the pads are not located under the rocket engine (good thing that would be a major flaw in design) the dust would not travel.

So putting this two point together less then 1.3 pounds of thrust per in contacting the surface (ceiling fan produces more then that) And the dust doesnt float in a vacuum meaning the only dust that could be disturbed is directly under the rocket and no where near the foot pads.

And theres a third issue which we could go into to involving the lunar dust itself its not talcum powder. The Moon's surface is covered by a layer of rocky material called regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, regolith will resist, almost like solid rock.

Ok so another of his theories destroyed Jarrah White and others keep forgetting 1 thing this isnt the Earth, Things happen diffrently on the moon.So things we consider common sense from observations on the earth doesnt apply on the Moon!!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 6/7/10 by dragonridr]


jra

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Another point is, in order for the regolith to even travel it would have to elevate above the ground. If it didnt, if it rolled across the ground, we should have seen radiating lines emanating from below the LM. Where is there evidence of soil displacement and build up in the photographic record or in the videos?



no soil disturbance.


I just love how you used the worst photo you could find. Do you seriously expect to see anything in a 396 × 473 image taken ~5m away from the LM? You could at the very least, pretend to put a bit of effort in your image searches.

But then you might have stumbled across images like this, that show that the regolith was blown out radially from under the LM. And we all know you don't want that.


AS11-40-5858
AS11-40-5920
AS11-40-5921

Here is a link to the 16mm DAC footage of Apollo 11 LM landing, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

vimeo.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Another point is, in order for the regolith to even travel it would have to elevate above the ground. If it didnt, if it rolled across the ground, we should have seen radiating lines emanating from below the LM. Where is there evidence of soil displacement and build up in the photographic record or in the videos?



no soil disturbance.


I just love how you used the worst photo you could find. Do you seriously expect to see anything in a 396 × 473 image taken ~5m away from the LM? You could at the very least, pretend to put a bit of effort in your image searches.

But then you might have stumbled across images like this, that show that the regolith was blown out radially from under the LM. And we all know you don't want that.


AS11-40-5858
AS11-40-5920
AS11-40-5921

Here is a link to the 16mm DAC footage of Apollo 11 LM landing, for anyone who hasn't seen it.

vimeo.com...



Those images you posted simply support those who believe Apollo was a sham.
I dont see a crater, or displacement of regolith. Where is the build up? Where are the tracks from rocks being rolled or jettisoned from below the LM?

What you are have there looks like somebody took a broom and swept away footprints from the production crew.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
lol, you asked for evidence of regolith displacment and when shown you reckon it was just swept with a broom.

Once again, i suggest you review the meaning of "cognitive dissonance" and consider how it applies to you:

en.wikipedia.org...

PS: the layer of regolith is generally only a couple of cm's thick, and under that is much harder ground. You can see in the images that much of the regolith has been displaced. Why again would you expect to see a large impact crater?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Most people discussing this topic fall into one of two catagories, either; Its too hard to fake it or its too hard to make it. Most comments i read whilst interesting didnt convince me either way. The most compelling fact that i have heard is how did they endure 5 mins exposure to the Van Allen radiation belts in those flimsy suits and capsule let alone the estimated 3 hours it would take at their estimated speed? If someone could explain some of it at least i would appreciate it!



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


Go back one page. The explanation starts there.
Owt enil.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Hey, new guy here. Just thought I'd register and say something that's on my mind. There are a lot of great posts debunking "hoax evidence", so I will only focus on a very small part of this debate that relly irks me about some of these moon hoax claims.

There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of pages of Apollo-related techincal documentation, tests, predictions and assumptions spanning over a decade worked on by thousands of scientists and engineers.

When a rational person sees a mistake or a contradicion in this huge jumble of data, he would consider a number of possible reasons for this, like maybe the mistake is based on incorrect base data. Or maybe the test was simply flawed? Maybe some new information came to light later? Maybe the guy who wrote it was just flat out wrong?

What does a hoaxer see? Proof of a conspiracy! It's absurd.


Originally posted by FoosM
So why does NASA disagree with you?



An example was the installation of frangible probes on the base of each foot pad to tell the crew the lander was a meter and a half above the surface and to switch off the descent motor. If the motor were still firing when the craft touched down, the engine nozzle would be damaged, landing stability might be affected, and the ascent stage might be impaired by debris kicked up by the engine exhaust.13
history.nasa.gov...

debris kicked up by the engine exhaust

debris kicked up by the engine exhaust


That quote I assume is from this site:
history.nasa.gov...
That particular quote is backed up by reference #13, which is:

13. Richard Reid, "Simulation and Evaluation of Landing Gear Probe for Sensing Engine Cutoff Altitude During Landing," Internal Note MSC-IN-65-EG-10, 15 March 1965; MSC Quarterly Activity Report for Assoc. Admin., OMSF, NASA, for period ending 30 April 1965, pp. 67-68; Grumman Reports no. 30, LPR-10-46, 10 Aug., p. 18, and no. 33, LPR-10-49, 10 Nov. 1965, p. 15.


So the quote is based on a Grumman report on a test in 1965.

So, the contractor for the Lunar Excursion Module does some tests in 1965 that seems to indicate the possibility of debris flying everywhere during lunar landing.

Then, in 1969, when the LEM actually lands on the moon, none of that happens.

Which is the more plausible conclusion?
a)The tests were based on bad assumptions, the parameters were off, or something similiar.
b)The moon landing was a hoax.

Considering that they're knowledge of the moon was rather limited in 1965, it's pretty reasonable to assume that maybe, just maybe, they might have done something wrong back then with their tests. I prefer the conclusion a) and I'd wager a guess that most rational people would, too.


Originally posted by FoosM


Another factor that influenced the landing-performance analysis was the desire of the Apollo 11 (LM-5) [...]


The contradictions within NASA is mind boggling.

Oh look, a document from 1972 ( ntrs.nasa.gov... ) is inconsistent with a document from 1965! Could this be proof of a cover-up? Or is it more likely that between those seven years, they actually learned something new and their old assumptions were proven wrong? I'm betting on the latter.

During the Apollo years, NASA and the contractors created a workforce of hundreds of thousands of people. At the start, there were a lot of conflicting opinions and relatively little information about the moon and the challenges of the mission. There were a lot of mistakes made during the years. A lot of them. One of them cost the lives of three astronauts and it's a miracle no more of them died.

I think it's silly to sat that that group of mistake-prone people with conflicting opinions would be capable of pulling off one of the biggest conspiracies of all time and keeping it secret for all this time



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


Welcome MacAnkka, wow it's amazing. You have such a similar posting style to CHRLZ. For your very first post on ATS it's almost uncanny.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


Welcome MacAnkka, wow it's amazing. You have such a similar posting style to CHRLZ. For your very first post on ATS it's almost uncanny.


I'm no alt of anyone on this forum.

I found this forum by searching for some topics about the Falcon 9 incident above Australia. Google brought me here, I checked out the Australia UFO topic, became interested about the rest of this site, found this marvellous topic here, read the last ten or so pages and felt the urge to post something.

I honestly don't really care whether or not you believe me. I just registered because I felt the urge to say something. If no-one cares about my ramblings, I don't mind. If someone believes I'm someone I'm not, I don't really care about that, either.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by MacAnkka]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again, FoosM, amongst ALL of the most incredible, and incorrect, assertions you make (which time, and time again are thoroughly explained) you come up with this gem, that totally misinterprets the facts!!!


Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).



See how you did that? (And, does everyone else see, and understand what he/she did, just there?)

You took a comment, by Aldrin (who BTW was doing what is typical, in the world of pilots -- acting as a second set of eyes for the guy who was actually flying, because HIS concentration was on certain instruments, and his luxury of peeking out the windows was minimal. Buzz was there to 'call out' other information, to act as a second set of eyes, and brain, to augment Armstrong).

So, Aldrin comments that he sees dust, when the radar altitude still reads 40 feet above the surface. THIS DOES NOT mean that the dust was "billowing" up to their altitude!!! How in the heck you came up with that interpretation is beyond belief!

The phrase 'picking up some dust' doesn't mean the dust is actually 'picking up'!
Has no one ever heard the term in the sense that Buzz meant? 'picking up' is exactly the same as 'beginning to see some' dust. 'picking up' its movement...that is all.


Now, as to the "billowing"....This bears repeating, although it's been mentioned countless times already: dust (soil, feathers, whatever) don't "billow" in a vacuum! People (like FoosM and the reality-challenged 'JW') simply cannot (or will not) process this simple factoid. THEY keep trying to equate things that happen on the Moon (sans atmosphere) with how they would 'expect' to see it happen on Earth.



And all the way down till after touchdown we can see regolith being displaced.



Do you mean, in the films from the DAC? The final moments of the touchdown? Well, of course...the thin, loose layers on the surface were displaced. LATERALLY! No Air! Remember? This means, in simplest terms...ONE little particle gets moved by the engine exhaust gas pressure (NO AIR, remember) and IT hits another particle, etc. (Multiplied, of course, by the number of particles initialy affected by the exhaust pressure). Somewhat like billiards. UNLIKE on Earth (WITH AIR) there is no additional 'stirring', or energy dissipated, which would occur IN AIR, like on the Earth.

Get it?



So there was enough soil below them to create a crater.


AND, you have the certainty to positively state this....why, exactly???
Have you been up to the Moon, to measure for yourself, and thus have personal knowledge???




[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


Well, notwithstanding your initially rude greeting, I am happy to have you aboard, MacAnkka!

(You're an Aussie? I have a soft spot in my heart for Aussies, anyway...oops, did I say that out loud??)



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


Well, notwithstanding your initially rude greeting, I am happy to have you aboard, MacAnkka!

(You're an Aussie? I have a soft spot in my heart for Aussies, anyway...oops, did I say that out loud??)

Thanks.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not actually an Aussie; I'm from Northern Europe. I was just following the Falcon 9 flight somewhat closely on the net and when Phil Plait on Bad Astronomy posted about the Australia sightings and how Falcon 9 was in his opinion responsible, I started to look for more information and opinions and came here



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I think we're up to 5 or 6 times, but we'll soldier on.

So how about a response Foos?


Originally posted by Tomblvd

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.



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.


Sitll waiting for you to answer this question Foos. What are you running away from? It should be a simple response.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MacAnkka
 


The reason ppk confuses you with CHRLZ is that he backs up his posts with actual links to facts that support his answers. It infuriates the HBs.

Well done. It is a badge of honor.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
lol, you asked for evidence of regolith displacment and when shown you reckon it was just swept with a broom.

Once again, i suggest you review the meaning of "cognitive dissonance" and consider how it applies to you:

en.wikipedia.org...

PS: the layer of regolith is generally only a couple of cm's thick, and under that is much harder ground. You can see in the images that much of the regolith has been displaced. Why again would you expect to see a large impact crater?


How hard was the ground?
That was not the description Neil had described after he set foot on the moon.
So thats a contradiction.

Furthermore:



The crewmen reported no sensation of toppling instability during touchdown. A postflight simulation of the landing dynamics indicated a maximum footpad penetration of 0.5 to 1.5 inches and a footpad slide distance of 18 to 22 inches.


Where is the evidence of the slide? Where do you see cracks in the HARD ground due to the weight of the lander? They didnt gently land a helicopter.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again, FoosM, amongst ALL of the most incredible, and incorrect, assertions you make (which time, and time again are thoroughly explained) you come up with this gem, that totally misinterprets the facts!!!


Aldrin stated he saw dust being picked up some 40 feet in the air (did it billow?).



See how you did that? (And, does everyone else see, and understand what he/she did, just there?)

So, Aldrin comments that he sees dust, when the radar altitude still reads 40 feet above the surface. THIS DOES NOT mean that the dust was "billowing" up to their altitude!!! How in the heck you came up with that interpretation is beyond belief!

The phrase 'picking up some dust' doesn't mean the dust is actually 'picking up'!
Has no one ever heard the term in the sense that Buzz meant? 'picking up' is exactly the same as 'beginning to see some' dust. 'picking up' its movement...that is all.

[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]


So how did Aldrin see "dust" from 40 feet in the air. How far along the horizon would that dust have to travel before he could see it from his window?



And fine, I dont care you if you think the dirt only went sideways. Where in the pictures is there proof of that!?
You keep making these claims of science but you cant even show it having happened.
So where can I OBSERVE your claims?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join