Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(Notes on the video, from the YouTuber):
"Not only has Jarrah made another video that any elementary school kid could debunk, but he has also politely provided us with all the necessary video to prove him wrong. Just like his 'black box' experiment."

"White Noise" !!! That one still makes me

I see briefly a plume.
We'll see how J.W. will respond.

But was it enough to dock the LM to the CM?
How fast was the CM going that the LM had to dock to?
I heard once 4000 MPH, and if that is true, I dont see how that
one blast off would cause that LM to go 4K mph. So please tell me
they had subsequent ignitions to increase speed at least.

But what concerns me more, and is really the red flag for me is this:

FITH (fire-in-the-hole ) ignition

One early concern, though not directly connected with external design, was the firing of the ascent engine while it was still attached to its launch pad, the descent stage. The exhaust blast in the confined space of the interstage structures - called FITH for fire-in-the-hole - could have untoward effects. Some observers feared that the shock of engine ignition might tip the vehicle over. And what would happen if the crew had to abort during descent, shed the descent stage, and return to lunar orbit? This would require extra fuel, posing yet another weight problem. Scale model tests in 1964 allayed these misgivings to some degree, but the real proof had to wait for a firing test in flight of a full-scale vehicle

history.nasa.gov...


Here is what forum member on another forum posted:

The ascent engine ignition on top of the descent stage was referred to as a "fire in the hole" or FITH ignition. While it was listed as a requirement to demonstrate the FITH could be done safely and successfully before a landing could be attempted, in actuality Apollo 11 was the first flight during which an actual FITH ignition of the ascent engine was accomplished. (It was not accomplished as planned during the unmanned Apollo 5 test, nor was it attempted during Apollos 9 or 10.)

And this is what I had always understood as well.
Now I ask. I challenge anyone here to show that there was ever a full-scale test.

Can you imagine sending a men to the moon and not being 110% to being able return back to Earth? Lift-offs have always had their problems to this day!

For that reason, and many others, I call hoax. Because it goes to the theory that there were absolutely too many things that could go wrong to actually attempt the mission. And therefore have 8 missions go to the moon without loss of life is astounding, if not impossible in the 20th century.

reply to post by FoosM


Except that there was a successful "fire in the hole" test during the Apollo 5 mission. I dont know where this random forum member gets his information but he is wrong.

The Apollo 5 mission tested the Lunar Module in a space environment, in particular its descent and ascent engine systems, and its ability to separate the ascent and descent stages. The descent engine would become the first throttleable rocket engine fired in space.
The mission also performed a "fire in the hole" test—as depicted in the mission's insignia—whereby the engine of the ascent stage would be fired whilst still attached to the descent stage. This would simulate the conditions experienced in an abort during descent to the lunar surface.

en.wikipedia.org...

There I've answered your question, now you answer mine. Are you the person who made this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.

Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:

The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?

Talk about "Never A Straight Answer!" Did you or did you not make this intentionally misleading post?

Where is that list of SFX directors that agree with you?

Where is all of your documentation, photos, etc. Or are you merely going to keep quoting misinformed people from other BBS sites?

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM, you are flat WRONG on every post, in your pathetic attempts to "tear apart" Apollo!!

Worshiping at the altar of "Jarrah White", and his wannabe accolytes, seems to be your downfall...in fact, "JW" is NOT doing anything....NOTHING AT ALL...that is "new' in these silly "debates". All he does is find the same old, same old tired, pathetic and already proven WRONG so-called 'arguments' and re-package them....

...AND you seem to miss the points, when they are presented to you. Example:

I see briefly a plume.
We'll see how J.W. will respond.

Indeed, we are salivating in anticipation for the response from "White Noise"!!

BUT, the 'plume'?? It is explained, very very clearly in that video.

JUST AS when the third stage engine firing for LOI is seen a very brief "flash" of plume, so too is it seen when the ascent module engine first ignites.

Seems "JW"/"(WN)" and you as well, just cannot comprehend the science and chemistry of the propulsive mixtures used???

The briefest of visible flashes, due to the initiation of the combustion. NOTHING burns perfectly, in exactly correct balance, in the first microseconds....BUT, after the reaction is underway, the "plume" does become invisible to the naked eye. JUST AS EVERYONE keeps telling you!!

The clincher that shows either the ineptitude, or willful deceptive practices of "JW" in his crap videos is his assertion that he can't see the ascent module's plume...when, in FACT...once the angle is correct, you CAN SEE IT!!!! Not a "plume", of course, but the heat of reaction that is contained within the engine bell nozzle...hidden from view until you are looking right up its ass! After the 'pitch-over' movement, in the ascent phase!!!

"JW" is either totally inept, or a bloody liar! And, by now, everyone reading this thread has seen for themselves.


Now...your weak attempt to 'complain" about the orbital mechanics of lift-off, and acceleration for the rendezvous back on Lunar orbit??

(A measely 4,000MPH?? Tell everyone, WHY you think the spacecraft can't accelerate to that velocity...because, you ARE aware of the speeds required in EARTH orbit, aren't you? AND enroute???)

Why not read a bit:

About 215, 000 miles into the voyage, Apollo slows to a speed of around 2, 000 mph due to the decreasing but persistent effects of Earth’s gravity. As Lunar gravity begins to supercede Earth’s gravity, the vehicle begins to accelerate once again. To achieve lunar orbit insertion, Apollo must retrofire (engine facing in the direction of motion) its service module engine to slow the spacecraft to orbital velocity.

www.christa.org...

Here, from above link, is a nice graphic to help comprehension:




IF you have read anything at all about space technology, and exploration efforts that are so amazing, then how can you believe this "hoax" crap???

Are you serious?? :shk: I mean, if THAT is a question you ask, without embarrassment...because you don't do the research...then I don't know what else to say. Except, you ARE embarrassing yourself, in case you were not aware....







[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by FoosM

Can you imagine sending a men to the moon and not being 110% to being able return back to Earth? Lift-offs have always had their problems to this day!

Yes, because you can only be 100% sure of anything. Under the circumstances, they were willing to settle for a somewhat lower percentage.

For that reason, and many others, I call hoax. Because it goes to the theory that there were absolutely too many things that could go wrong to actually attempt the mission. And therefore have 8 missions go to the moon without loss of life is astounding, if not impossible in the 20th century.

Since you don't have that reason any more, please provide the other reasons you keep claiming to have. You are right in that final statement, three lives were lost. Why do you keep forgetting about Apollo 1 except when you want to accuse NASA of being assassins?

Now: are you or are you not the person who made this intentionally misleading post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not going to go away.

reply to post by FoosM


Again, this deserves another mention, because it illustrates so clearly the problem with the "hoax" believers' perceptions (or lack thereof):

I heard once 4000 MPH, and if that is true, I dont see how that one blast off would cause that LM to go 4K mph. So please tell me they had subsequent ignitions to increase speed at least.

I haven't yet gone to research the actual velocity of the CSM on orbit, I will when I have time. If I can, then you or anyone else can as well, yes??

BUT, let's use the "4000 MPH" figure, for now. Simplifying it, and converting to metric....it is 6,437 kph. Now, assuming even a minimal acceleration, easily tolerable by the astronauts when standing, of ONE G (9.8 meters per second) simple math comes up with a time needed to reach 6,437 kph at that acceleration is 657 seconds. That is 10 minutes, 57 seconds. Just under ELEVEN minutes!!! That assumes constant acceleration....of course, in orbital mechanics, it is important to plan ahead, and time your launch in order to accomplish a rendezvous of that type. Time the acceleration, and angle of trajectory, and time it so that the already orbiting object (the CSM) will be where you expect it to be, when you get there....

Ummm...they WERE rocket scientests, after all...and had practiced such maneuvers from the time of Gemini missions, and knew the math.

The same basic principles apply today, for rocket launches and on-orbit rendezvous at the ISS, or Hubble, or whatever....



Now, I shall toddle off and do some research...rather than trusting it from memory....

~~~~~

Ok, I am back with actual data....

Ascent stage
Ascent Propulsion System (APS) engine;
(skip)....
APS propellant mass: 5,187 pounds (2,353 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 pounds-force (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS pressurant: two 6.4-pound (2.9 kg) helium tanks at 3,000 pounds per square inch (21 MPa)
APS specific impulse: 311 sec (3,050 N-sec/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 feet per second (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)

Lunar Module


There you have it. The maximum available delta-v shows that a speed of 2,220 m/sec is achievable. That calculates out to 7,992 kph.


Any other questions????









[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Again, this deserves another mention, because it illustrates so clearly the problem with the "hoax" believers' perceptions (or lack thereof):

I heard once 4000 MPH, and if that is true, I dont see how that one blast off would cause that LM to go 4K mph. So please tell me they had subsequent ignitions to increase speed at least.

I haven't yet gone to research the actual velocity of the CSM on orbit, I will when I have time. If I can, then you or anyone else can as well, yes??

BUT, let's use the "4000 MPH" figure, for now. Simplifying it, and converting to metric....it is 6,437 kph. Now, assuming even a minimal acceleration, easily tolerable by the astronauts when standing, of ONE G (9.8 meters per second) simple math comes up with a time needed to reach 6,437 kph at that acceleration is 657 seconds. That is 10 minutes, 57 seconds. Just under ELEVEN minutes!!! That assumes constant acceleration....of course, in orbital mechanics, it is important to plan ahead, and time your launch in order to accomplish a rendezvous of that type. Time the acceleration, and angle of trajectory, and time it so that the already orbiting object (the CSM) will be where you expect it to be, when you get there....

Ummm...they WERE rocket scientests, after all...and had practiced such maneuvers from the time of Gemini missions, and knew the math.

The same basic principles apply today, for rocket launches and on-orbit rendezvous at the ISS, or Hubble, or whatever....



Now, I shall toddle off and do some research...rather than trusting it from memory....

~~~~~

Ok, I am back with actual data....

Ascent stage
Ascent Propulsion System (APS) engine;
(skip)....
APS propellant mass: 5,187 pounds (2,353 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 pounds-force (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS pressurant: two 6.4-pound (2.9 kg) helium tanks at 3,000 pounds per square inch (21 MPa)
APS specific impulse: 311 sec (3,050 N-sec/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 feet per second (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)

Lunar Module


There you have it. The maximum available delta-v shows that a speed of 2,220 m/sec is achievable. That calculates out to 7,992 kph.


Any other questions????









[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

The CSM's orbital velocity was 4,087 kilometers per hour. Excellent work, Weed.

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM

 

Except that there was a successful "fire in the hole" test during the Apollo 5 mission. I dont know where this random forum member gets his information but he is wrong.

Now wait a minute...

Lets go back and look at what this test accomplished, and, lets look again what I had previously quoted from NASA.

You said there was a firing FITH firing during Apollo 5. That is correct.
And for that I thank you and anybody else who posts this as an answer.
But tell me, what did this test prove?

Before we go into into Apollo 5, lets review what happened prior to Apollo 5.

A 1966 schedule called for LM-1 to be delivered to Cape Kennedy on 16 November of that year, but the craft ran into difficulties in manufacturing (see Chapter 8) and the months slipped by. Changes after the command module fire (see Chapter 9) caused further delays, and LM-1 did not arrive in Florida until 27 June 1967 (three months beyond its original launch date).

So we got all kinds of problems, as one could expect building a complex system.

The first flight of a new aircraft type is always a historic occasion for the type. It is also one of the most dangerous, because the exact handling characteristics of the aircraft are generally unknown. The first flight of a new type is almost invariably flown by a highly experienced test pilot. First flights are usually accompanied by a chase aircraft, to verify items like altitude, airspeed, and general air-worthiness.

A first flight is only one stage in the development of an aircraft type. Unless the type is a pure research aircraft (such as the X-15), the aircraft must be tested extensively to ensure that it delivers the desired performance with an acceptable margin of safety.

In other words you dont go right into production just after the maiden flight. And was Apollo 5 the maiden flight for the LM?

Just before dark, at 5:48 on the afternoon of 22 January, after several hours' delay because of equipment problems, Apollo 5 lifted off. The powered phase of booster flight was uneventful, and LM-1, still attached to the S-IVB stage, went into orbit about 10 minutes into the flight. In less than 45 minutes, its attitude control engines pulled LM-1 away from the S-IVB. After checking out the spacecraft for two revolutions, ground control signaled the descent engine to fire for 38 seconds. Four seconds later, LM-1's guidance system sensed that the vehicle was not going fast enough and stopped the engine. The cutoff was a planned feature - in a manned flight, it would give the crew time to analyze the situation and decide whether the engine should be restarted to continue the mission. Under normal conditions, the burn would have started with full tank pressurization and would have reached the proper velocity within four seconds. For this mission, however, the tank was only partially pressurized and it would have taken six seconds to reach the required speed. Because of the premature cutoff, the flight controllers moved to a planned alternate mission.

Ok- problem!

Ground control sent a switch-off signal to the guidance computer and cut in a mission programmer to command the lander's maneuvers. The descent engine was fired twice more (once for a full 33 seconds). There were two ascent engine firings, one for the fire-in-the-hole abort maneuver. Mueller reported to Webb that all primary objectives had been achieved. LM-1 reentered the atmosphere, and its fiery remains plunged into the Pacific several hundred kilometers southwest of Guam on 12 February.

Ok, one of the tests was for an abort maneuver.
That has nothing to do with launching from the moon and escaping its gravitational pull does it? As a matter of fact, how can this actually be seen as its maiden flight if the LM didnt go through the entire procedure it would have to do for Apollo 11?
It would have to land on the lunar surface, and launch off from the lunar from the lunar surface, and re-dock in space.

The ground controllers moved to an alternate plan to fire the descent engine manually two more times. It then performed the "fire in the hole" test and another ascent engine burn. Through no fault of their own, the programmers lost the opportunity to see most of their work tested in flight.

Again, I posted the following:

One early concern, though not directly connected with external design, was the firing of the ascent engine while it was still attached to its launch pad, the descent stage. The exhaust blast in the confined space of the interstage structures - called FITH for fire-in-the-hole - could have untoward effects. Some observers feared that the shock of engine ignition might tip the vehicle over.

Was this test done?

See, if Jarrah White had the resources to do the same test NASA did with the LM, you guys would all call shenanigans. Because you would point out to JW that he didnt fully test the LM. He didnt land it, he didnt launch it from the moon, or a lunar like condition.

What would happen if the astros got stranded?

Gemini Lunar Surface Rescue Spacecraft - The unmanned Gemini spacecraft would be piloted by remote control to a landing near a stranded Apollo lunar module. An extended Gemini re-entry capsule had a passenger compartment for the two rescued astronauts. The basic LSRS design used three Lunar Module descent stages for lunar orbit insertion, lunar landing, and lunar ascent.

I find this interesting because there was an acknowledgment that this could very well happen, and secondly, they could pilot a lander by remote control. And so the question is, why didnt they do unmanned tests of the LM on the lunar surface?

Now what were the results of the Apollo 5 test? What happened after?

. There were problems... Now another question arose: Should we repeat this flight? Grumman felt we should, I disagreed. After considerable technical debate, we decided that the next flight with LM would be manned - which it was, 14 months later.

Didnt learn anything from Apollo 1 I guess.

www.astronautix.com...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
wiki

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Can you imagine sending a men to the moon and not being 110% to being able return back to Earth? Lift-offs have always had their problems to this day!

Yes, because you can only be 100% sure of anything. Under the circumstances, they were willing to settle for a somewhat lower percentage.

Under what circumstances?
Kennedy was ready to cut NASA's budget, he made the declaration about going to the moon by 1970 but wasn't stupid about it. And no, Apollo 5, see my last post, fails as a full scale test of the LM ascent engine. Lowering standards in science is a clear indication of foul play.

For that reason, and many others, I call hoax. Because it goes to the theory that there were absolutely too many things that could go wrong to actually attempt the mission. And therefore have 8 missions go to the moon without loss of life is astounding, if not impossible in the 20th century.

Since you don't have that reason any more, please provide the other reasons you keep claiming to have. You are right in that final statement, three lives were lost. Why do you keep forgetting about Apollo 1 except when you want to accuse NASA of being assassins?

No, CIA.
Apollo 1 didnt leave the Earth.
But sure is a good indicator that if such an accident can happen on Earth, it could easily go wrong going to the moon.

Now: are you or are you not the person who made this intentionally misleading post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not going to go away.

No the post is not misleading. I dont know why you insist it is. The link to the quote is there, and I didnt link it to you.
It wasnt even a reply to you. What you think you are the only one who thought Earth light has influence on the moon?

reply to post by FoosM


And yet you left out this paragraph:

At 17 and 19 June program reviews at Rocketdyne and Bell, respectively, Low learned that qualification tests were progressing with such excellent results (the engine had gone through 53 good tests) that an end to qualification by mid-August seemed possible.27 Success now appeared certain, but the race with the decade was becoming very close.

history.nasa.gov...

All of the systems were continually tested, dozens of times, together and separately. Further, the fact that NASA has made all of this part of the record suggests they are not trying to hide anything. Now, how do you explain this misleading post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by FoosM

No the post is not misleading. I dont know why you insist it is. The link to the quote is there, and I didnt link it to you.
It wasnt even a reply to you. What you think you are the only one who thought Earth light has influence on the moon?

Because I was the only one on this board that made the assertion that the blue light you claimed is a "spotlight" was the Earth. You have just stated the reasons why the post was misleading.

well it would seem he does not need debate when footage like this is out there.

no suit on the moon MARK 50sec man to right

check the man to the right with no suit bending over...

i think he is the janitor cleaning the set up...

also it is slow motion at about the speed that you need to portrait a no grav enviroment as we have seen over and over.

[edit on 023131p://f49Tuesday by plube]

reply to post by plube

An oldy but a goody. I seem to remember a couple years ago the person who made this video came out and admitted the hoax. Either way, one of my favorite moon landing/ hoax clips.

www.disclose.tv...

Is there anything about this video you find credible? Please tell me you posted this as a joke.

reply to post by DJW001


you are just full of Dis information...do you think people are stupid...you went down the replies on the disclose tv site and pick the one quote that suited your needs to make yourself look intelligent....

now if this fake or not....just cause one person said it was you selectively grabbed one quote rather than use your own words.

least i give people credit to look and do their own research....i post the link so people to see for themselves...not to just dismiss out of hand...have you bother to research it on your own within the two seconds you took to reply...I think not.

but anyways.....i am finding that because this site is is supposed to have some intellignet people (which it does).

it is also full of people who just send out babble for their own gratification.

IMHO

reply to post by plube


Right. So the grainy black and white footage of the DoD logo (which appears in numerous hoax videos) must make it authentic, right? Nobody can just put an old bit of DoD stock footage on their video, right? What does the DoD have to do with NASA? Then a grainy bit of color footage with the NASA logo on it. Again, no hoaxer would be able to do that. Then, grainy filmed footage of a video. Note the horizontal scanning lines. Why would a videotape have film grain? Oh yes, to match the grainy stock footage at the beginning and to mask the photoshopped figure that has been added to the tape. Notice the pixels around the "janitor?" Do you see him actually interact with anything on the video? Do I actually need to debunk this (admittedly very funny) joke?

reply to post by DJW001


I was not stating real or not real....and yes i could fake it myself....

just noting your tactics as you rip through a thread...obsevational notation.

there is such a thing as debunking...and showing the error in false information...but Arrogance perpetrates ignorance.

and your reply just shows that once again...so may you get far...and you just stay blind to TPTB.

there is so much out there against the moon landings that it is unbelievable.

it is almost 50yrs later and we are stil no closer.

we didn't have the technology back then and we are just on the envelope of the technology now.

and i bet it will be China that is closest at this particular point.

but time will tell...and people will learn the truth.

May the debate continue as the proof mounts and the truth wont be hidden.



[edit on 033131p://f29Tuesday by plube]

Here are some new Moonfaker videos by Jarrah White that he wanted me to tell you all about:

Re: Jarrah, look, your thread on ATS has reached 141 pages!

Thanks for keeping me up to date. I've just released my latest MoonFaker, why not post it there.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Best wishes,
Jarrah

Plube you blatantly implied that you thought that video was real then accuse others of disinformation? What were you trying to contribute???

There were so many things wrong with that I wouldn't know where to start, and why waste people's time with it? The gravity was nothing close, and there are all kinds of technical issues with that piece. It's the kind of video that would only 'fool' someone that wants to believe it.

Your point seems to have been only to mislead.

And subject change yet *again* ... Unaddressed things list:

- Interpretation of credible source
- Contradictions/lack of understanding of light sources, the moons atmosphere, and how light interacts with the universe
- The list of VFX/SFX/High profile film makers that agree with hoax believers that were mentioned
- The issue that we see specular highlights regularly at night with only ambient light

There are a lot of people being sharp and possibly arrogant in this thread, but FoosM doesn't do much to calm people's attitudes. Furthermore read some of his posts where he constantly accuses people of being slow etc ...

If people want to debate and share information I think that's good, but it seems to me people are just promoting Jarrah White at all costs. You mention people doing their own research etc ... What research have you contributed to this thread, Plube, beyond a video you *know* was fake?

reply to post by WWu777


These videos are better:




How much research did that take?

I am rudbrbs, aka Svector. This is my video and it is a fake. I created it

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by WWu777


WWu777....

Since you appear to be "in contact" with Mr. "White Noise" ('WN', aka "Jarrah White"), why not find out from him...

,,,WHAT HE IS AFRAID OF????

He either is afraid to come here and defend himself (unless he's using the sock name "FoosM"???), or he prefers to have others do his dirty work?? :shk:

Also....ask him about his activities on his YouTube channel. Does he Block/Edit comments on his videos that disagree with his "conclusions"?? If so, WHY??

WHAT is he afraid of???