Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by maxhile

I have watched several of jarrah whites videos,

Hmm I have watched them all....

and he has debunked almost every flaw in the Apollo landings and more of nasa's lies.

Wait a second here I thought you watched several of his videos, yet you now speculate that he has debunked almost all the flaws in NASA's lies? How do you get this statement from watching several of his tens upon tens of videos?

Wow I can tell your not much of a researcher here. Wild speculation on your part isn't going to get you far in this thread, just a reminder that we are talking about science here, which is supported by DATA and facts, not gut feelings.

I agree that certain facts from the biographies of these astro-nots and the happenings in the documentation from nasa records contradict theirselves way too much.

Again what Biographies, what documentation? When you make a Claim you need to include a source, or its considered to be opinion.

It seems to me that if you lie about something so major that you would have your stories straight. One of the greatest American hoax's of all time is being unraveled by a twenty year old, lol!

Wells after that post I can tell that your about as ill-informed as JW or worse since you believe a 20 YO over someone with Ph.d's?

My offer is this: Read the account from official sources from Engineers, Chemists, Metallurgists, Flight Surgeons, plus a whole myriad of other scientific disciplines and learn from their expertise.

They ask yourself why you'd believe some 20 "boy' from OZ that has no ability to make a educated guess about anything.

Hey its up to you, you can believe the fraud of Jarrah White and be included in his people of inept followers or you can think for yourself and learn about Apollo.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by cushycrux

 

Did I forgot something ?

On the "pro" side, only forgot the Indian spacecraft Lunar mission. Did some science, took pictures. Camera resolution not as good as the LRO, however. Chandrayaan-1.

en.wikipedia.org...

Chandrayaan-2 will launch in 2013. spaceflightnow.com...

The Apollo "hoax" believers will soon be just a fading memory.......

]

Oh yes this is interesting!

India's Chandrayaan 2 moon mission will launch in 2013 with a lander from Russia, but the first announcement of the lunar probe's science instruments does not include contributions from the United States or Europe...

"NASA and ISRO have engaged in initial discussions towards potential cooperation on ISRO's Chandrayaan 2 mission," said John Yembrick, a NASA spokesperson. "Specific payloads by U.S. researchers for the mission have not been identified."

European researchers have also proposed instruments, according to an ESA official that declined to discuss specific payloads.

Maybe the Indians dont trust the instruments or results of the instruments that NASA has used or wants to use.

reply to post by FoosM


I see you are still reading, but comprehending through some sort of filter you obtained from FantasyLand....

Maybe the Indians dont trust the instruments or results of the instruments that NASA has used or wants to use.

Pretty weak, and smacks of desperation, perhaps? Just making sh!t up inside your fevered imagination again?

Originally posted by FoosM


Maybe the Indians dont trust the instruments or results of the instruments that NASA has used or wants to use.

So now that you have admitted that the Indian Space Agency doesn't trust NASA and is not in their pay, we can trust the information they collected with non-NASA instrumentation and anything further they say about Apollo.

Thanks for the heads up.

Originally posted by FoosM


Maybe the Indians dont trust the instruments or results of the instruments that NASA has used or wants to use.

So now that we've concluded that the ISRO is NOT in NASA's pocket, we can look at the images taken of the Apollo landing sites by the Terrain Mapping Camera and the Hyper Spectral Imager, both built by the ISRO, NOT NASA, and confirm what the ISRO itself says; that they imaged actual Apollo landing sites.

Indian Probe Takes Clear Picture of Apollo 15

Thanks Foos.

Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.

We have satellites over Earth that can read the date on a dime but yet Japan, India, and NASA all have had satellites flying around the moon and not one of them has a photo of anything we supposedly left up there.

Originally posted by Pervius
Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.

We have satellites over Earth that can read the date on a dime but yet Japan, India, and NASA all have had satellites flying around the moon and not one of them has a photo of anything we supposedly left up there.

That isn't the point. Foos has now said the ISRO doesn't trust NASA, so by extension we can believe the Indians. They have affirmed the lunar landings, which contradicts what Foos believes. We now await him to extricate himself out of this rhetorical mess.

As far as cameras go, the countries involved put into their payloads what they most believe will best suit their needs. Apparently NOBODY feels the need to go the the expense of putting up an ultra-high resolution camera to take snapshots of the lunar landing sites to a point that will satisfy the moon hoax believers. If you feel there is something sinister about that, well, add hundreds more people in on the conspiracy.

Originally posted by Pervius
Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.

If you are looking for confirmation from another country, look at the JAXA/SELENE probe. It has taken stereoscopic images of some Apollo landing sites. A computer programs then creates a 3D rendering of the landscape from any perspective. When they compare a picture of the landscape of Apollo 15 with their own data, it is an exact match.

Impossible if Apollo was a hoax.

JAXA/SELENE images (Figure 5)

Originally posted by cushycrux
We have 100000 People involved in The Apollo Job

Just a minor correction. It should be 400,000 people.

second line

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Pervius
Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.

We have satellites over Earth that can read the date on a dime but yet Japan, India, and NASA all have had satellites flying around the moon and not one of them has a photo of anything we supposedly left up there.

That isn't the point. Foos has now said the ISRO doesn't trust NASA, so by extension we can believe the Indians.

Oh Tom, lying smacks of desperation.
And you have been lying for quite some time now.

I said "maybe" ISRO doesn't trust NASA.

And it could be a reason why Obama is making that
200 million dollar a day visit to India this week.

We'll see what comes out of that.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by FoosM
You know it doesnt take much for the average person to see through
the NASA scam. Take this video for example:

Whenever I show this video to people, red flags go up.
The first thing they notice is how the astronaut fumbles a film magazine into the camera.

Foos, thank you for this clip, I was in stitches. Where did you find this?

I love the part where the $38,000,000 rover takes a second or so to respond the command input.
"yep, that will keep our astro's safe on the moon???"

Do you know if the suits where pressurized in this clip as they allegedly were on the moon?
Their hands seem very nimble in some parts. I'ts going to take me a couple of days to go through this carefully.
Brilliant find.

While you are at it though, take a look at his video:



What do you make of it?



First you got the horizon and ladder making goofy movements.
One of the astronauts does not have his gold visor down and like walks right
into the sunlight.

I was confused at first, because to me it appeared that the leg of the LM was moving.
Wouldnt that tip the whole thing over? Or did the camera move? And there is that suspicious white spot in the center of the black "starless" space.


Anyway, looking into it further I did find this:

Jim Irwin's descent to the surface, from 120:02:47 to 120:03:42. With Scott in the background, Irwin descends the ladder, almost falling down as he reaches the footpad. Because the lunar module is tilting backwards, the pad is off the ground and is unstable, swivelling under Irwin. He can be seen swinging off-camera to the left of the picture, holding the ladder for support with his right hand to prevent a fall. Just before that stumble, his face is partly visible and his Snoopy helmet is quite clear inside his helmet. On the surface, Scott tells him to pull his visor down then deploys the antenna on top of Irwin's life support system. They discuss the "glass ball" rock on the ground and how black their boots have become already from the dust. Scott goes off-camera to the right to get the television camera tripod, then Irwin also goes off to the right to collect the contingency sample.

So the LM is standing on three legs?
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM
One of the astronauts does not have his gold visor down and like walks right
into the sunlight.

You clearly have a bad memory Foos as this has been brought up before, the gold visor is a glare shield. The standard visor which is transparent to visible light is opaque to UV, the gold visor simply offers additional protection. Was it you or one of your stupid little friends that tried to use a clip from 'Deep Impact' or 'Armageddon' (I can't remember which) as 'an example of what happens without the glare shield in direct sunlight'
Don't you know anything about physics? Oh wait... don't answer that
They are supposed to have them down in direct sunlight, but like any human being (trained or not) they don't always listen. You're supposed to wear a welding mask when welding due to the high intensity UV generated and also the bright point of light, but I know plenty of people who still weld without a visor sometimes. They then complain later that their eyes feel like they have sand in them and their faces look like a lobster, but it doesn't mean them welding is a hoax


Edited to add:

The LEVA consists of the following subassemblies.

a. Shell assembly
b. Shell cover assembly
c. Protective visor
d. Sun visor
e. Hub assemblies (2)
f. Latching mechanism
g. Side eyeshade assemblies (2)
h. Center eyeshade assembly

....snip...

The protective visor is an ultraviolet-stabilized polycarbonate shield which affords impact, micrometeoroid, and ultraviolet ray protection. It can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions and requires a force of 2 to 4 pounds for movement. A coating is added to the inner surface of this assembly. The elastomer seal on the upper surface of the stiffener prevents light passage between the two visors. The protective visor can be lowered independently of the sun visor, but cannot be raised independently with the sun visor in the Down position.

The inner surface of the polysulfone sun visor has a gold coating which provides protection against light and reduces heat gain within the helmet. The visor can be positioned anywhere between the full-Up and full-Down positions by exerting a force of 2 to 4 pounds on the pull tabs. The sun visor cannot be independently lowered unless the protective visor is in the Down position, but it can be raised or lowered independently when the center eyeshade is in the full-Up position and the protective visor is in the Down position.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM

First you got the horizon and ladder making goofy movements.
One of the astronauts does not have his gold visor down and like walks right
into the sunlight.

The camera is making goofy movements because it is attached to the LM, which transmits the astronauts movements when they are on the ladder. Why shouldn't he walk into the sunlight with his visor up? He's not going to fry like toast. It's just sunlight.

I was confused at first, because to me it appeared that the leg of the LM was moving.
Wouldnt that tip the whole thing over? Or did the camera move? And there is that suspicious white spot in the center of the black "starless" space.

You see, you were able to answer your own question. The camera was on a sort of boom, so it bounced a bit when the astronauts moved. No, the whole thing would obviously not topple over, it just wobbles. What white spot are you talking about? The specular reflection of the Earth on the astronauts' helmets? We've done that one already. When I get some coffee in me we can resume the geology debate.

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh Tom, lying smacks of desperation.
And you have been lying for quite some time now

Prove it.

reply to post by FoosM


Since you have chosen not to respond to my previous post, I assume that you have no objections to my methodology or the inevitable conclusions that were drawn. To summarize, the methodology consists of using facts that can be determined through direct personal experience and observation, combined with logical reasoning. The conclusions so far:

1. The lunar surface is not uniform, and must be composed of different materials in different regions.

2. The Moon must be composed of very dark materials.

3. The Moon has several different types of terrain that seem to have different origins, some of which are capable of "writing over" others.

We have identified two characteristic landscape features, craters and maria. Before we investigate the possible origins and natures of these features, there is another obvious observation to be made: these landscape features are extremely rare on Earth. In investigating them, we will be examining crucial differences in the geology of the Earth and the geology of the Moon, or selenology as pundits like myself prefer to call it.

The most characteristic lunar feature is clearly the crater, so we shall examine them first. They clearly come in a wide range of sizes, and their distribution appears to be random from our perspective on Earth. (Note: cratering is more profuse and maria non-existent on the far side, but interesting as this is, it requires observations made by space probes and falls outside of the self imposed limitations of the methodology.) Based on a study of terrestrial geology, there are two likely candidates for the formation process.

The first candidate is meteorite impact. Here is the most notable terrestrial example, the Barringer Meteorite Crater in Arizona:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a016036c404.jpg[/atsimg]
Terrestrial landform images courtesy of WebEcoist.

Note the "squared off" edges. We may return to them later. Although the impact took place 50.000 years ago and was witnessed only by very startled woolly mammoths, we can be confident that it was formed by meteoric impact and not volcanism because there are no volcanic vents and copious amounts of oxidized nickel-iron fragments, weighing up to 600kg,s have been found in the area. These fragments have largely been found outside the crater itself, suggesting that the meteorite fragmented and radiated debris over a large area. This might explain the "rays" we see associated with certain craters on the Moon.

The second possible explanation is volcanism. The craters are too wide and shallow to be volcanic cones, but they do bear a striking resemblance to terrestrial caldera (from a Latin word for "cooking pot.")

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37b42b8712a1.jpg[/atsimg]

Calderas are formed when the magma chamber under a volcano collapses following a major eruption. We know this because a caldera is all that is left of the super-volcano Krakatoa.

Is it possible to conclude which is the more likely candidate based on our own observations? Sadly, no. The debate ranged for hundreds of years. There have been very few observations made over the past 400 years to suggest that the Moon is volcanically active. Some astronomers have reported seeing "lights" associated with the central peaks in certain craters, most notably Aristarchus, but these have been anecdotal and rare. Nevertheless, the possibility that the Moon was much more geologically active at some earlier point in its history cannot be ruled out. If only there were some way to examine the actual rocks... it would be possible to perform a differential based on the presence of minerals like stishovite,which can form when quartz is subjected to the intense heat and pressure of a high energy impact.

Let us segue to the topic of maria by studying this photograph:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2bada0f101f.jpg[/atsimg]
Photo by Stefan Seip

Note how the large circular formation has been "filled in" by a darker, smoother material. It is certainly suggestive of a liquid pouring into a crater or caldera. Because this has been a lengthy post, I will consider this below:
Continued.

Originally posted by FoosM
So the LM is standing on three legs?
history.nasa.gov...

It's not making solid contact with one of the legs, yes.

Scott: Well, I see why we're in a tilt. (Pause) We've got...(Laughs) That's very interesting. There's so much hummocky ground around here (that) we're on a slope of probably about 10 degrees. And the left-rear foot pad is probably about 2 feet lower than the right-rear foot pad. And the left-front's a little low too. But the LM looks like it's in good shape. The Rover's in good shape.

reply to post by FoosM


Let us resume our investigation of the Mare Crisium:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2bada0f101f.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a certain resemblance to both caldera and meteoric craters on Earth that have been filled in by a liquid. On Earth, this liquid is water. Here is a caldera in the Hawaiian Islands:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ffd6e5867d8f.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is a meteoric crater on the North American continent:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49ee9c9a0ac4.jpg[/atsimg]
NASA


What is this dark liquid, then? It cannot be water for several reasons. First, it is too dark and does not "glisten" the way water does when observed from above. Secondly, there are craters visible on it. If it were liquid water, the surface would have closed over the impacting body. Oh yes, it is now safe to say that at least those craters peppering the mare must have been formed by meteoric impacts after its initial formation. This one photograph captures three distinct phases of landscape formation, one written over another. Most likely, this dark material is something like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/940a5ce68783.jpg[/atsimg]
Paolo Cortini

This photo shows a lava desert in Iceland. The material is primarily basaltic lava. Notice how dark it is. With nothing more than a pair of binoculars, we have been able to deduce that the lunar surface has had several processes at work upon it, and that it is most likely composed of dark, volcanic or plutonic rock. Upon closer examination, the material turns out to be black sand. Something has turned glassy lava into grainy sand. What could that be?

Let us pause for a moment to take stock of the situation. We have found that the landscape features most characteristic of the lunar surface are extremely rare on Earth. Why would that be? Let's take a look at another example of the sort of formations typical of the Moon as they appear on Earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1a335f848dc.jpg[/atsimg]
WebEcoist

This is an aerial photograph of the Shoemaker Impact Structure (or the Teague Ring as you Aussies would probably prefer to call it). Looks a bit, well, ratty, doesn't it? It seems worn down, and encrusted with salt. It certainly isn't the sort of pristine structure we see on the Moon. Go back and look at the other examples. They have been worn down, too. Their edges are softer. They are covered in ice and snow or are partially submerged in water. The obvious conclusion is that there is something about the Earth that erases landforms over time, and that these mysterious forces are absent from the Moon. This would mean that the lunar and terrestrial environments are fundamentally different!

We can easily deduce what these differences are, and prove them with our own eyes. The implications are staggering: if our observations are correct, the samples of materials collected by the astronauts can only have originated on the Moon!

Do you see where this argument is going, FoosM? Would you care to refute any of the claims made thus far? I'll give you some time to digest these posts before continuing. As a special treat, the next few posts will include a video.

Foos, you called me a liar. I am waiting for you to either prove the statement or retract it.

I think we should rename Foos 'The Singularity', let's see if he lives up to his new name by not working out why.

Well its confirmed,
the Apollo moonlandings are based on a... book!?

Clarke takes us on a tour of all the basic aspects of spaceflight: the multi-stage rockets, trajectories and orbits, g forces and weightlessness, space suits, rendez-vous and docking, assembly of space stations and orbital refuelling of interplanetary spacecraft, possible applications of unmanned satellites, interplanetary robotic probes, manned bases on the Moon and on Mars. — He even touches on interstellar flight, concluding that it will remain out of reach for the foreseeble future, but — ever the optimist — considers that anything that does not contradict the fundamental laws of physics will ultimately be achievable. He has famously pointed out that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

The book was based on pre-war studies carried out by enthusiasts at the British Interplanetary Society, complemented with an account of German wartime accomplishments. The performance figures of the V2 rocket were known and could be extrapolated to larger designs. A 150-ton three-stage rocket based on V2 engines should be able to lift a payload of 50 kg into orbit. If engines could run on hydrogen and oxygen, a 30-ton rocket might achieve the same orbital payload. It should be possible to launch an artificial satellite within 10 years. (The book was originally published in 1951.)

www.zenker.se...