Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by WWu777


Beautifully done, congradulations on a superb job of presnting this.

I have a friend who was a worker on the Saturn 5 rocket project during his military stint. He worked in Texas and elsewhere. he has documents on his wall, certificates of participation int he late 60's.

I showed him "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon", he was pissed. He knew something wasn't right with there being no crater under the landing module and dismissed it out of hand, he now KNOWS we never went to the moon with the apollo missions.

Great job, S&F.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by -PLB-

 

What would you suggest good sir?

That we continue watching amateur videos full of speculation, but providing no real evidence aside from pictures and assumptions?

At least this guy is TRYING

If everyone approached conspiracies in the same manner as this young man in the videos, the general public might actually take us seriously

I know...I know... a guy can dream though right?

Well he could at least have given it a tiny bit more thought. Example: the "footstep" theory. He compares the flagpole with his bed. He totally neglects the leveraging effect of the flag pole. He also neglects the elastic attribute the soil on the moon may have. Instead he is jumping on a concrete floor.

Add to that the fact that there's no air to dampen the flag & pole movement and you will understand why a small movement in setting up the flag would result in continuing motion.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by WWu777
He knew something wasn't right with there being no crater under the landing module and dismissed it out of hand, he now KNOWS we never went to the moon with the apollo missions.

:sigh:

From another amateur analysis: The Moon landings were NOT faked.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

On the contrary, there are many photographs which show the disturbance of the lunar soil under or near the Lunar Module. For example, see AS11-40-5892 or AS11-40-5921 (from the ALSJ) which shows not only some discoloration under the descent engine, but also some radial disturbance in the soil from the outward blast. Also, see AS12-46-6781 which shows a trail of disturbed soil along the ground track of the Apollo 12 lunar module. On the left edge of this frame is the TV camera with some footprints right next to the small crater. The engine exhaust trail goes almost straight across the lower part of the image, about a quarter of the way from the bottom of the frame. There is some disturbed soil caused by an astronaut's footprints that angles diagonally across the exhaust trail, meeting it at the right edge of the image. If the landings were faked, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to "fool" the unwitting public. In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon.

Also, the expectation of having a blast crater (presumably looking like a fresh impact crater?) under the LM is flawed. Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It surely blows the surface dirt in a radial direction and will clear out a small hole, but not a blast crater (like an explosion of dynamite, perhaps?). There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch - not much different from the pressure caused by the weight of an astronaut on the Moon standing on one foot while walking across the surface.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by WWu777
He knew something wasn't right with there being no crater under the landing module and dismissed it out of hand, he now KNOWS we never went to the moon with the apollo missions.

:sigh:

From another amateur analysis: The Moon landings were NOT faked.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

On the contrary, there are many photographs which show the disturbance of the lunar soil under or near the Lunar Module. For example, see AS11-40-5892 or AS11-40-5921 (from the ALSJ) which shows not only some discoloration under the descent engine, but also some radial disturbance in the soil from the outward blast. Also, see AS12-46-6781 which shows a trail of disturbed soil along the ground track of the Apollo 12 lunar module. On the left edge of this frame is the TV camera with some footprints right next to the small crater. The engine exhaust trail goes almost straight across the lower part of the image, about a quarter of the way from the bottom of the frame. There is some disturbed soil caused by an astronaut's footprints that angles diagonally across the exhaust trail, meeting it at the right edge of the image. If the landings were faked, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to "fool" the unwitting public. In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon.

Also, the expectation of having a blast crater (presumably looking like a fresh impact crater?) under the LM is flawed. Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It surely blows the surface dirt in a radial direction and will clear out a small hole, but not a blast crater (like an explosion of dynamite, perhaps?). There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable. Given that the descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch - not much different from the pressure caused by the weight of an astronaut on the Moon standing on one foot while walking across the surface.

See Jarrah's video on the crater. He proves why there had to be a crater. All the math is done for you and all possibilities are examined. Watch all five parts. Here it is:

Moonfaker: No Crater
www.youtube.com...

Moonfaker: No Crater Addendum
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 30-4-2010 by WWu777]

SIX BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE NEW FAKE NASA MISSIONS!

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Sorry to disappoint you but if you watch the video of "A Funy thing..." yo uwill see that when the landing module is jetisoned and is coming back up to the alleged orbitor, it veers left and then right irratically, I thought that was great!!, It is obviously on a cable and they are lifting it towards the ceiling!!

I am an engineer by trade and a metalurgist and welder, with machining experience, I do know a bit about rockets and building craft. I have built quite of few things in my day, I'm not a youth by a long shot and always knew this was fruad at the highest level.

Many of my friends have worked in the "field" and know what is real from fake, we are all of the same opinion. Where will it end?

I would not go so far as to call him a genius. Chances are he looked at a lot of threads here and looked at the best replies for each argument.

One thing that you guys might look into is Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission Book.

He was there when the 'moon hoax' theory began.

According to Hoagland started in a roomfull of NASA employees and reporters, by JPL and NASA at a press conference.

Hoagland believes the reason JPL and NASA started this 'moon hoax' hoax was because they were trying divert attention away from what NASA found on the moon.

Dark Mission goes into more detail on this in his book.

reply to post by WWu777


You mean that they didn't throttle down while landing? Gee and here I thought that if they landed at full power as most moon landing hoax people claim they would never touch the surface of the moon. Interesting thing about a vertical landing, if you don't reduce power while coming down, you either don't touch the ground, or if you do somehow manage to, you bounce right back up and stay up. When the LEM touched the surface of the moon they were at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced power setting than the 100% most people think. In fact if you watch the video, they increase power and bounce back up into the air to avoid rocks.

This is a good find, and although I know we really did go to the moon several times, This does not mean that there is footage that wasn't faked. People, especially the public get very confused when they hear that the moon landing was hoaxed, because they think right away that it means we never even sent men there at all instead of the more likely notion that just the footage showing the landings were faked to hide something else.
I think there is quite a lot of evidence to support that scenerio.
I love it when a fast and quick thinker comes along like this young man and makes the disinfo experts of the establishment look like cage monkeys

Check this out. Why did Neil Armstrong lie about not being able to see any stars? Look here:

www.youtube.com...

Start at 6:00 for the clip of Armstrong saying that you can't see stars on the moon!

Only had time to watch one video, so I picked the one about the reflecting of light on the astronauts.

In the Mythbusters example they clearly stated they used grey protland cement "mixed with charcoal" to simulate the moons reflectivity. I don't mean to take anything away from this young man but, in his rebutal he plainly states twice the reflectivity of the cement but failed to even mention the part about it being mixed with charcoal. This would produce a much darker mixture with less reflectivity.

This would not seem to be an over site if only said once, but when you start to drive a point home you should at least give notice to the full statements you are trying to counter.

He has some well thought out researched video's,i've watched the 'Flags are alive' & it's all very intriging & nice to watch.
I believe something fishy went on during the moon landings & his video's help prove something did..
hopefully he can come to ATS & have a chat with us sometime

OK I wasted about 15minutes watching some of these videos.

I am Not impressed. Nor am I convinced by his weak arguments.

If this guy was as smart as you all are saying, he wouldn't have wasted this much time on this, imo.

He seems very bias as well.

His conclusions seem pre-determined before any evidence has been revealed as well.

hmm I am not even going to bother watching the vids just have to say this. If we didnt go to the moon then how did the mirror reflector get there?

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[1] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, while two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment.

The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals were detected after 1971 until a team from University of California rediscovered the array in April 2010 using images from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.[2] Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth.[3] The Lunokhod arrays suffer from decreased performance in direct sunlight, a factor which was considered in the reflectors placed during the Apollo missions.[4]

Or maybe you think aliens planted the reflectors on the moon for us....

*ahem* -

Creating a well organized video is not the mark of "genius". It's the mark of a well organized, thorough person of normal intelligence.

However, this guy might actually be a little dim.

CASE IN POINT: During the flag wave video, he shows someone (him?) trying to "replicate" the flag waving with a flag on earth. *facepalm* It doesn't take a genius to know that:

The Moon only has 16.6% the amount of gravity as Earth.

Mystery solved.

Originally posted by loner007
hmm I am not even going to bother watching the vids just have to say this. If we didnt go to the moon then how did the mirror reflector get there?

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[1] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, while two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment.

The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals were detected after 1971 until a team from University of California rediscovered the array in April 2010 using images from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.[2] Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth.[3] The Lunokhod arrays suffer from decreased performance in direct sunlight, a factor which was considered in the reflectors placed during the Apollo missions.[4]

Or maybe you think aliens planted the reflectors on the moon for us....

They were bouncing lasers off the moon's surface in 1966 and the Soviets were doing it in 1962. National Geographic ran an article on it even. The three videos starting here explain this in detail:

www.youtube.com...

Yeah I watched some of the vids too. My brain hurts now. Especially hilarious was the 'expert' in 'perspective' analyzing the shadow angles. When she said in the exhibit vid 3 or something that the landscape wasn't tilted or something because of the relative size of different objects my head just exploded. Not to mention the example photos the guy takes for his argument, I was laughing, cryind and my soul just died a little. Also completely ignoring wide angle lens perspective didn't help. to this guy.

Originally posted by treemanx
I just watched the "Reflect on this" series of 4 videos,yada,yada..

However, the kid did not take into account that the Mythbusters used a mixture of Portland cement AND charcoal yada,yada...(yada for abbreviation, we know what he said)

I do feel he made some solid points though, and has given some new breath to the moon landing conspiracy. I am not yet 100% convinced though, but thanks for sharing!

Agreed he has some good points, but maybe he missed one point of light.
As we all know the night is brighter on full moon nights and they, (the scientist interviewed about earths albiedo) said earth was much more than the moon in regards to reflection about 30 to 40%.
Maybe on the night in question there was a full earth out?!.
This would give a false source of light i think.

(Disclaimer) Thinkin is not my strong suit. (end)
Btw i am still on the fence as to whether we did go to teh moon, but the crater series sure did do some damaging evidence IMHO.

Edit: Disregard this post!

It is useless

[edit on 30-4-2010 by free_form]