Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

The crater and jump videos are pretty amazing. You must be brainwashed for not having just a doubt seeing them. It would be like accepting official version of 09/11. The flag video is not very convincing though.

For me the way astronauts jump on the videos is totally unrealistic. I alway tougth they were attached on cables.Until then I didnd't know that NASA itself conducted test and experiments to see how high they would be able to jump. And it contradicts completely their own moon videos.

And the "NASA guy" trying to explain that they are pulled back by gravity because they were heavily equiped : Lol he doesn't even knows that free fall force is the same regardless of the mass. It's the beginning of the jump that's harder , you don't fall faster if you are heavier.

The evidences are in front of your eyes , for you to see.
You can alway find an excuse to deny them, like saying that the "kid" wo makes theses videos is not credible (I too don't believe in 100% of what he says).
Propanganda is not made to challenge critical thinking, but to give an excuse to the cowards.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


Several points. Assuming this isn't satire (which it seems to be)

1. You say this man is a genius, have you any proof of this? Or is this your own embelishment. I don't want to use an ad hom, just the accuracy of your thread title.

2. The flag movement occurs either when someone is touching it or when someone is near it. Jump up and down near a flag on Earth and you can get it to move slightly. On the moon the level of gravity is reduced so the force of jumping is less, but the lack of air resistance could easily result in movement. More importantly the static charge of the astronaut could attract or repel the flag. The youtube user claims otherwise by passing a statically charged balloon past the flag he has. However he doesn't take into account the air resistance around him. This shows a serious flaw in his methedology.

3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?

4. No crater? If you use this argument then i ask where is the large dust cloud as the pod lands? If you want a crater you need dust and none appears. This suggests that they either cut the engines before landing (official explanation) or that the particles, being jagged and existing in minimal gravity simply were thrown up and then sank back onto the surface rather quickly.

5. The user comments about the astronauts not jumping higher than 12 inches, is it not possible they feared jumping to hard? I know that if i were on the Moon i would take things a little easy. Bouncing yes, messing around sure, trying my absolute best to jump as high as possible? No.

6. His comments ragarding the light are ignorant at best. The sun is relfecting in all directions upon the surface and so would reflect Aldrins visor, further as Armstrong was facing him then Armstrong would be relfecting light toward Aldrin. Indeed this is the same argument for all reflections upon the faceplate.

7 The youtube user mentions mythbusters and dislikes their explanation, despite them proving the lighting myth incorrect with an experimental model. He disliked the albido of the surface, yet he fails to realise that the sun is filtered throught he Earths atmosphere whereas the moon is directly reflecting the suns shine.

Consider the albedo of other planets

www.asterism.org...

Earth’s albedo is 0.37; Mars is 0.15; Jupiter, 0.52; Saturn, 0.47; Uranus, 0.51; Neptune 0.41. Pluto’s albedo varies from 0.5 to 0.7.

As we can see, a simple comparison of Earth vs the Moon is not a scientific way of using albedo.


This guy isn't a genius if he cannot even get his experiments within the parameters of the Moon. His experiment of running past the flag with a charged balloon show this guy is a moron when he doesn't take into account the level of air resistance.

I'll check the videos later, but I definitely liked the OP's introduction to this guy.
For once, a genius who is not lured by money or hookers to work on disinfo programs

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by verylowfrequency

 

4. No crater? If you use this argument then i ask where is the large dust cloud as the pod lands? If you want a crater you need dust and none appears. This suggests that they either cut the engines before landing (official explanation) or that the particles, being jagged and existing in minimal gravity simply were thrown up and then sank back onto the surface rather quickly.

You don't really try to argument. You are doing it backward, you have a conclusion and you try to find something to support it.

So there is not crater because there is no dust ? Hey the point is that there should be a crater , dust or not.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ickylevel]

Originally posted by ickylevel

You don't really try to argument. You are doing it backward, you have a conclusion and you try to find something to support it.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ickylevel]

Your response is not a rebuttal it is an accusation in the hopes of avoiding an argument. I could easily say you have a conclusion and you try to find something to supoprt it. If you think my answer is wrong then please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

An independent journalist named Dave McGowan has done one of the most thorough jobs that I have seen yet in debunking the Moon Landings.

Here is a link to his homepage.

Click on the 12 part series titled "Wag the Moondoggie".

He makes some really interesting, but very basic arguments.

Where did the rockets keep all of the fuel?

When the TLI happens (that's trans lunar injection NASA geeks), then the burn was to be from a J-2 rocket that was designed to fire twice.

The first was to get the astronauts into low earth orbit.

The second was the TLI intending to get them to the moon.

The altitude at low earth orbit is 1,240 miles.

The rocket fired for two minutes and the distance to the moon is
238,857 miles.

The rocket is assumed to get the astronauts an awfully long distance, and quite accurately when one considers that no atmosphere would be present to allow for control of the craft, like an airplane.

Especially when one considers that the earth and the moon both have gravity. (The moon's is 1/6th that of the earth).

So this means that, regarding gravity from here to the moon, which is what rockets are designed to overcome, that we have a battle from here to the moon.

Gravity.

Then the astronauts have to make it back.

Off of the moon, which has a fair amount of gravity to escape, in the grand scheme of things.

This was a rough summary of this argument.

He also asks why no other country has been to the moon other than the good ole US of A (wave flag).

Our technology was from 1968. I would think that someone could replicate that by now.

He then goes on to state, with NASA references, that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash with radiation".

Notice that he is not saying in the Van Allen Belts alone.

But ALL of SPACE beyond low earth orbit.

Which brings me to the final argument that I will reference and that has to do with the amount of neutron radiation on the surface of the moon, which is RADIOACTIVE for of all those reading.

We didn't begin mapping that radiation on the moon until 1999.

That is a big chance to take with our astronauts, and, consequentially, why Russia stated that they would never send anyone to the moon.

The radiation.

It would have fried the astronauts.

Mmmmmmm..... Fried Astronaut.

Read the twelve part series.

The Moon landing never happened why cant you accept that reality ?

Why are we spiking the moon if the moon landing was ever real?

What are they hiding on the moon?



NASA is a wasted organization, they tell lies mixed with truths.




[edit on 30-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?

is there not a rover on Mars?

could not a similar device simply deployed the special mirror's?

did not the MoonFaker videos show evidence that lasers were reflected off the surface of the moon well before the first "landing"?

Originally posted by Josephus23
The altitude at low earth orbit is 1,240 miles.

The rocket fired for two minutes and the distance to the moon is
238,857 miles.

The rocket is assumed to get the astronauts an awfully long distance, and quite accurately when one considers that no atmosphere would be present to allow for control of the craft, like an airplane.

Newtons laws. An object will continue upon it's path until outside forces act upon it. Low earth orbit requires 17,000 mph (approx), escape velocity is 24,000 (approx). Once in low earth orbit the required acceleration is rather small when you consider that gravity is smaller than at earthhs surface.

Originally posted by Josephus23
Especially when one considers that the earth and the moon both have gravity. (The moon's is 1/6th that of the earth).

So this means that, regarding gravity from here to the moon, which is what rockets are designed to overcome, that we have a battle from here to the moon.

Actually if you want to argue that then the moon would attract us toward it.

Originally posted by Josephus23

Then the astronauts have to make it back.

The moons escape velocity is about 6,000 mph. That is an instant speed required to escape, with constant acceleration the object has to travel far less speed. The lander could easily have escaped with a rocket that burned a little while.

Originally posted by Josephus23

He also asks why no other country has been to the moon other than the good ole US of A (wave flag).

They haven't wanted to? There has been no reasont o go back until modern times with the realization that helium 3 can be useful.

Originally posted by Josephus23
Our technology was from 1968. I would think that someone could replicate that by now.

You know the strange thing? Tons of the moon attempt hardware was scrapped and engineers are scouring old tech to see how they overcame certain problems. This is to save them having to think it through a second time. We could of course fund them to research it a second time but that seems stupid.

Originally posted by Josephus23
He then goes on to state, with NASA references, that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash with radiation".

Notice that he is not saying in the Van Allen Belts alone.

But ALL of SPACE beyond low earth orbit.

Which brings me to the final argument that I will reference and that has to do with the amount of neutron radiation on the surface of the moon, which is RADIOACTIVE for of all those reading.

We didn't begin mapping that radiation on the moon until 1999.

That is a big chance to take with our astronauts, and, consequentially, why Russia stated that they would never send anyone to the moon.

The radiation.

It would have fried the astronauts.

Mmmmmmm..... Fried Astronaut.

Read the twelve part series.

A sattelite with 3mm of aluminium protection would consume around 1500 rem of radiation. The lethal dose for humans can be as high as 200 rem, at first look this seems lethal! However the astronauts passed through the belt very quickly and so their dose was minimal. The spacecraft also seems to have used gold foil as protection which is denser than aluminium and so offers more protection.

Oddly modern sattelites are more prone to radiation cmpared to old echnology because the circuits are smaller and so more vulnerable to radiation.

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?

is there not a rover on Mars?

could not a similar device simply deployed the special mirror's?

did not the MoonFaker videos show evidence that lasers were reflected off the surface of the moon well before the first "landing"?

The original experiments were i think conducted in 1962 by MIT, before the Moon landings. However those readings were inaccurate and diffuse requiring tons of trial and error. Once the mirrors were put in place future experiments were far more accurate and recieved a stronger signal.

So i'm afraid this part of the conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by reeferman


While you can bounce a laser of the surface of the moon, and indeed anything, the devices left on the moon by the Apollo missions are "Optical Transponders" ergo scientific instruments. They have been used to further develop our understanding of orbital dynamics, tidal effects, torque affects on lunar rotation, relativistic time delay, solar radiation pressure even the thermal expansion of the reflectors themselves.

While I enjoy a good conspiracy theory "the moon landing hoax" isn't one of them. After all, we all know that the Nazi's established a moon base during the war didn't they?

This shows that it really pays to do your own research. I easily accepted the Mythbusters explanation that their artificial lunar dust had the same albedo as the moon. I guess you can't trust anybody.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


This is a great example of someone not in any way disproving what I said, but stating interesting facts, presenting themselves as an authority, and then expecting the readers to accept the answers blindly without saying anything to actually address the argument.

Newtons laws. An object will continue upon it's path until outside forces act upon it. Low earth orbit requires 17,000 mph (approx), escape velocity is 24,000 (approx). Once in low earth orbit the required acceleration is rather small when you consider that gravity is smaller than at earth's surface.

Rather small when compared to what exactly?

I am glad that you know the velocities needed, but you did not address the question of fuel and how much and where was it kept and if it was adequate.

Actually if you want to argue that then the moon would attract us toward it

I was actually referencing control of the craft.

If the earth pulls crafts toward it then why do they need their rockets, or thrusters or what have you upon re-entry?

To CONTROL the aircraft against the effect of gravity.

They haven't wanted to? There has been no reasont o go back until modern times with the realization that helium 3 can be useful

I am discussing sending a man into space to the moon.

I am discussing the relevant technology.

I cannot think of ANY single aspect to life where technology has advanced in one country, but yet stayed so flaccid in other countries.

You know the strange thing? Tons of the moon attempt hardware was scrapped and engineers are scouring old tech to see how they overcame certain problems. This is to save them having to think it through a second time. We could of course fund them to research it a second time but that seems stupid.

How exactly does this relate to anything that I stated in my argument?

A sattelite with 3mm of aluminium protection would consume around 1500 rem of radiation. The lethal dose for humans can be as high as 200 rem, at first look this seems lethal! However the astronauts passed through the belt very quickly and so their dose was minimal. The spacecraft also seems to have used gold foil as protection which is denser than aluminium and so offers more protection. Oddly modern sattelites are more prone to radiation cmpared to old echnology because the circuits are smaller and so more vulnerable to radiation.

Please good sir, if you are going to summarize and debate my point, then please accurately summarize my point.

I clearly stated that space beyond low earth orbit is "awash with radiation".
That being said there is no passing through the belts.

It is all AWASH with intense radiation.

And I got that word for word from this article from NASA.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]

Originally posted by ickylevel
The crater and jump videos are pretty amazing. You must be brainwashed for not having just a doubt seeing them. It would be like accepting official version of 09/11. The flag video is not very convincing though.

For me the way astronauts jump on the videos is totally unrealistic. I alway tougth they were attached on cables.Until then I didnd't know that NASA itself conducted test and experiments to see how high they would be able to jump. And it contradicts completely their own moon videos.

And the "NASA guy" trying to explain that they are pulled back by gravity because they were heavily equiped : Lol he doesn't even knows that free fall force is the same regardless of the mass. It's the beginning of the jump that's harder , you don't fall faster if you are heavier.

The evidences are in front of your eyes , for you to see.
You can alway find an excuse to deny them, like saying that the "kid" wo makes theses videos is not credible (I too don't believe in 100% of what he says).
Propanganda is not made to challenge critical thinking, but to give an excuse to the cowards.

Why did they not, (always) just walk in a normal fashion. The spacesuits for the Moon were not perfect, and had an effect on every movement they made and were most likely "out of balance" for every move they made and the kinetic energy in every footstep on the Moon can compensated by only the body itself. Bouncing up would give a good idea as to how which way they were likely to pitch to as they come down again, within narrow parameters, after that, they made mistakes, and fell.

I enjoyed this as nothing before on ATS. For NOT actually being an astronaut, Not having tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars @ his disposal (Mythbusters), NOT having NASA's cooperation, and being so young, I think this was a superb set of factual examples of physics and obvious 1968 ineptitude when facing today's research.
Thx Bro!!!!

Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it’s the only Apollo science experiment still running.

Could have been installed using robotic technology but would the risk reduction to the life of a human astronaut be worth that?

Conceivably they could also have sent recorded messages back to earth that would satisfy the parallaxed observations of the HAM operators but it would be a pretty amazing hoax.

I believe some scenes may have been simulated for the TV audience but how can we know for sure the extent?

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Bordon81]

Well, I tried to beleive.

This guy is just ridiculous, he takes one clips out of hours of footage to prove a point, yet discards all of the other examples that disprove his "theory's".

When the astronaut jumped he didn't even bend his knees, it looks more like a spasm than a jump.

and when they show other astronauts jumping multiple feet he says " well they must be using wires"

It's ludicrous. really..... and a pretty far throw to call someone who beleives this nonsense a " genius".

To bad the kid is wasting his time! he has potential to do some good.

Well. Good intro on the thread, I have to admit that. It made me curious.

But, SERIOUSLY!!!
This guy is no genius at all. He does good work on editing his material and making his videos sort of appealing, but his voice doesn't help at all and he makes too many assumptions.

Now just to take one example let's take the Flag movement video.
Totally BS!!! How can this guy pretend to make a point about the flag using conditions like the ones he shows. In a studio, with atmosphere, a flag of unknown material that doesn't even resemble the ones on the moon. PLEEEASSSE!!! Give me a break!!!
He's just a guy making videos man, that's all. No genius. No moon hoax proven. Just ignorance being shown for all the world to see.
Same with the jumps on the moon. Just look at the dust. That's all you need to see. And of course it helps to see lot's of moon mission videos, where you can bet there's no trickery, no slowing motion down, no wires, no studio, no alternate light sources or any of all the other crap that's been thrown out there.

Well i always founf it interesting when people use footage and photos of the moon landing to say that it is always a hoax. I also love when people look at moon photos and say they are airbrushed to cover up the alien structures and the pictures of all the "alien things".
What i cannot get my head around is how some posters here will say that all the moonlanding stuff is fake but all the alien moon pics are real and nasa is trying to cover it up but they use the same pictures and videos to proove both sides.
So was it a hoax or not? Well when it comes to conspiracy theory it greatly depends on what conspiracy theory is being talked about.