Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Jdub says that hams could not have monitored Apollo radio transmissions, right?
Hams did monitor Apollo radio transmissions, right?
Jdub is wrong, right?

Not that it matters, but can you provide links to hams claiming they monitored Apollo transmissions with "general" technology?

reply to post by kbeet

The first ascent from the moon was not televised. On the last mission, when it was televised, the camera did not have audio capabilities. There was no reason to because there is no sound on the Moon.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

I think you're getting confused John because earlier you said:

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It's was easily check-able that the Apollo used the 2 ghz range and Hams cannot pick that up.

So.. where did the Moon believers get this notion to try to use it as proof?

And as we have pointed out to you, checking the band plans is irrelevant as the legal restrcitions on the bands we are allowed to transmit in has no relevance to our ability to receive.
Jarrah's research into Amateur Radio bandplans is a farce and proves nothing, as the only way it would be relevant would be if Hams tried to claim they spoke to the Astranauts.
Unlike these days of course, where a lot of them are licensed amateur radio operators and as there is an Amateur radio station on the ISS we actually get to speak to them, when they have time.

www.issfanclub.com...

The link is purely for anyone curious about that and doesn't have anything to do with Jarrah's claims by the way.

reply to post by Iwasas


I didn't ignore you. I was moving and switching from my laptop to my desktop and honestly didn't see your post till now.

Well perhaps Jarrah is wrong but as I said, from the data he looked at I can see where he drew his conclusion from.

The funny part is that not even Jarrah says Hams couldnt recieve the transmissions.
He just points out (even correctly afaik) that 2GHz is a band Hams arent allowed to send in, goes "AHA!" .... and then just never mentions anything about recieving.

Phage, You didn't answer my question last night/this morning ( I guess you didn't see it)

Don't you think ANY of his arguments are compelling?

I mean.. the guy does cover tons of material with over 200 clips.. hes has to be right about something.. the odds seem against him being wrong about everything.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I haven't seen anything from Jdub which is "compelling". All I have seen is easily disputable by use of a bit of independent research and application of logic and reason.

Nothing I've seen from Jdub is new "evidence" of the Moon landings being hoaxed. Sure, he presents some facts but all of his attempts to show that those facts are proof of a hoax fall short.

As this post points out.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

More on the Ham Issue:

Jerrah is actually debunking the claim that hams have claimed to have tracked the mission from the Earth to the Moon and back. Not just that signals were able to be picked up.

Jerrah does admit that it's possible to modify equipment to pick up the signals that the Apollo missions were transmitting on, but that this only occurred while the module was in orbit around the moon, and a small amount of voice from Apollo 15. not to and from the moon as he says many believers claim.

He also says this could not have been possible because the flight path was below the horizon much of the time and there is no way hams in the United States, could have been able to track the signals to and from the moon.

Apollo Ham Sandwich part 1. - www.youtube.com...

Phage, Much of what I hear is not Jerrah presenting this information as proof we did not go to the Moon, only that there are holes in the believers claims of things they use as proof that we went... that cannot be used as proof. In other words some of the arguments he has heard that prove we went, do seem to fall apart.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

CHRLZ

Thanks, FoosM, for demonstrating PRECISELY what I was talking about.
You haven't cited the source for those images - where are the links to show us where you got them?
---
Look at my earlier post.
And frankly, use any source you want to verify.
I use photos that NASA provides- LPI.


Anyway, first up, the double earth. Could be one of three things:
1. A refraction or reflection - but I doubt it - can't think of anything that would give such an undistorted double.
2. A film winding error, at time of capture. Remember this is a film camera, and film transport mechanisms do occasionally screw up, creating a double exposure.
3. A scanning error. Many film scanners have automated film-feed mechanisms, and if it misfeeds or has some sort of data error, it may result in the same effect as a double exposure.
-----
Could be this, could be that.
Bottom line is you dont know.
Winding issue would mean, as far as I know, the following photos would also be effected. They are not.
Scanning error? Why put a badly scanned picture in your archives for public viewing? Discard and rescan.


But let's look at the high resolution scan:
history.nasa.gov...
Hmm. No sign of a double earth.
-----
Maybe because its CROPPED out!


Check the next image:
history.nasa.gov...
Exact same size, so that suggests it wasn't cropped out.
-----

You want to use the next image to prove its not cropped?
Like the astros had tripods to keep their shots steady while in space


Wouldnt it be better to use the same shot and compare them side by side?



Yeah, thats what I thought, just enough space to crop it out.


So, it's a double image that appears on some versions, but not the high res scans. I'm afraid I've lost interest...
-----
Yeah yeah go ahead and get lost in your scientific method. LOL.
You know very well LPI also offers hi-scans, but not for "questionable" photos!

When looking for an explanation in the Apollo journal I cant seem to find any!

If it was a film-wind error, they wouldn't have known - the camera obviously took that shot, and the next one. With film cameras, you don't get instant feedback, you know... And the journal is about what happened at the time, not what transpired later. So if it is a scan error, of course the journal won't refer to it.
-----
More You must be good in making pretzels.

Why did they skip AS11-44-6673 & AS11-44-6668 and more??

Simply because if they reported on every single image in those series, the Journal would be many times longer, for no good reason. All the images are here, in sequence, even the duds (although they did leave out a few frames that were *completely* blank, ie 'wind-ons'):
www.lpi.usra.edu...
That site shows that double-earth version, and it is well-known for having the poorer versions of images - that's why the knowledgeable folk on this thread always post links to the HR versions, like those above..
---
You mean the cleaned up "oops better hide that" version

Anyway, point out the ones that are skipped...?

I would think double Earth would have been a scientific discovery worthy of front page news! As well as the strange angular haze that surrounds our planet!

I agree that the second is quite poor image editing, sadly commonly done to save file size. I shall write a stern note to NASA...

Now, how does that prove that Apollo was hoaxed, exactly?

And I've answered YOUR questions...
----
Oh yeah? Did I miss the cropped Earth answer? Oh wait, you somehow think you answered that by agreeing its an edited image.



Oh my my gut is aching- stop it stop it.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

So he admits it's possible to receive the transmissions from the surface to the command module? Where did those transmissions come from? The antenna used was aimed precisely at the Moon.

I'd like to see those claims from hams that they tracked the translunar phases of the mission. It's pretty easy to call foul on claims that were not made.





[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Ah yes, good ol "I didnt say that you stopped beating your wife"

See, he doesnt go all the way through to the conclusion of his argument, because that would be silly.
"Apollo was here then, and the next time another ham caught it over there. We can not rule out that it was not teleported by magical space fearies!"
well, no, we can't. But there are very, very few accounts of magical space faeries teleporting anything, and apollo would be way too big for them. So I guess we can set the propability for that having happened while nobody was looking to a pretty low level...

Firstly apologies John, was a bit too hot earlier (not used to it here in the UK) and I also get fed up with people like Jarrah who mislead people. My irritation shouldn't have been aimed at you so I apologise.

Next:

Originally posted by debunky
He just points out (even correctly afaik) that 2GHz is a band Hams arent allowed to send in, goes "AHA!" .... and then just never mentions anything about recieving.

Precisely! That is nothing less but delibrate disinformation. Sickening and proves he most certainly is not interested in any truth.

The third significant claim(IMO) the Moonfaker series makes is found in this video:


Here is a summary of the claims made on the video:

1.
The video highlights a webpage found at:
www.spacecraftfilms.com...

The webpage says:

Tranquillity Base - Spacecraft separation prior to landing occurred when the spacecraft were on the far side of the moon. The operation was filmed with the 16mm data acquisition camera. After separation Michael Collins examined the lunar module to make sure the legs were properly deployed.

2.
The video also highlights the following Youtube video:


In the Youtube video a BBC reporter says:

We've seen the separation of the command module from the lunar module like the separation of some primitive cell, and with that separation the sowing of life... of human life on our sister planet for the first time.

The Argument:
BBC could not have shown the separation of the command module from the lunar module on television for two reasons.

Firstly, the 16mm camera used was a film camera that did not broadcast from space. The film was only processed after the return to Earth.

Secondly, the spacecraft was behind the far side of the moon according to SpacecraftFilms.com and therefore even if the 16mm camera did have the ability to broadcast it could not have broadcast any way because the broadcast requires a line of site to the Earth, which was absent.

Additional Information:
Nobody seems to confirm or deny whether the BBC film the reporter showing the separation of the LM(Lunar Module) from the CSM(Command Service Module) actually exists.

Hey, I finally looked at this thread (waited till it got to page 67) and folks like PHAGE are smart like me (x-navy aviation dude) know we went to da MOON jeeeeeze...

Now I'm leaving and looking for a woman.

reply to post by truthquest

Whoa. Damning evidence alright. But there is no indication that the reporter is talking about actually seeing anything. Of course there's no chance the reporter was using flowery speech to mark a historic occasion. I've even been known to say words to the effect "We landed on the Moon". Does that mean I actually did?

"We've seen the future." Ever hear that before? Have you seen any videos of the future?

see: visualize: imagine; conceive of; see in one's mind; "I can't see him on horseback!"; "I can see what will happen"; "I can see a risk in this strategy"

The more I see, the more obvious it is that JDub is just pulling the strings of the hoax conspiracy believers. Maybe he is pretty smart after all.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by truthquest


Have we not PROVED that JW assumptions re the photographs are BULLS*^T.
Do you really think anything else he claims is true!

Or is it time for more challenges

reply to post by truthquest


Truth, in the first video, Jarrah clearly states the 16mm DAC camera filmed the landing and the eva. (It is at around 1:30 in the video).

By his very standards, JW has admitted we landed on the moon.

Now let's move on, shall we?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Iwasas

 

I didn't ignore you. I was moving and switching from my laptop to my desktop and honestly didn't see your post till now.

Well perhaps Jarrah is wrong but as I said, from the data he looked at I can see where he drew his conclusion from.

Well John, not piling on here, but I'm also very familiar with Ham radio, and when I first saw that video of JWs, I immediately recognized the basic mistake he made, that was pointed out to you. That is, Ham's are allocated certain bands that they can communicate on. But depending on the receiver (or, more recently, transceiver) and the aerial, Hams, or anybody for that matter) can receive any frequency they choose.

So Jarrah made a simple mistake. Fine, he doesn't understand Ham radio. But the problem is that when his mistake is pointed out to him, he not only doesn't retract the claim, he repeats it while moving the goalposts.

This is nothing short of frank dishonesty. And it should call into question every video he has made.

Originally posted by Phage

Whoa. Damning evidence alright. But there is no indication that the reporter is talking about actually seeing anything. Of course there's no chance the reporter was using flowery speech to mark a historic occasion.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

1. This man is a professional communicator and his job is to report what he sees.
2. If he didnt see it he wouldnt further use a simile to describe the scene.
3. it shows evidence of media manipulation and propaganda control, just like BBC reporting WTC 7 destruction before it happened

Originally posted by FoosM
Look at my earlier post. And frankly, use any source you want to verify.
I use photos that NASA provides- LPI.

I did, and I know the difference between rough scans, images produced for thumbnail galleries, and the real thing, namely original, unprocessed film scans.

Could be this, could be that. Bottom line is you dont know.

Correct, but the difference is that *I* consider all the possibilities, and then tend towards the simplest or most obvious. And I *admit* when I don't know for sure. I could spend more time on the double earth issue, and question nasa, but *I* didn't bring it up. Why didn't YOU do that before you brought it here? Testing it out for your next video, perhaps?

Winding issue would mean, as far as I know, the following photos would also be effected. They are not.

WRONG, and thanks for proving that you know sweet nothing about film. If the film slips, a double exposure will be recorded. Unless it slips again, the rest of the frames are simply displaced and are otherwise completely unaffected..

Any film scanner, be it automated or operator driven, will simply re-adjust to the new frame spacing as soon as it is detected. Just like your 1hr photoshop around the corner should do. If they don't, then they are incompetent.

Thing is, this sort of lack of knowledge is rather damning. If *I* knew this little about the cameras, I'd ASK, rather than make wrong assertions. As I've said before.. *I* don't hang out at neurosurgery forums...

Scanning error? Why put a badly scanned picture in your archives for public viewing? Discard and rescan.

So send them an email. Personally, I like the glitches, as they expose people's lack of knowledge as they try to make something out of them...

Maybe because its CROPPED out!

But.. you don't know? And you don't understand what 'cropped' means?

You want to use the next image to prove its not cropped?

Keep up the embarrassed laughter, it is apt. The size of the image in pixels indicates it was not CROPPED. Do you not understand the difference between erasing something, and CROPPING it? No, obviously you don't. Have you done ANY image editing, ever? Bothered to research the topic at ALL, so as to at least *sound* like you are informed?

Anyway, point out the ones that are skipped...?

I notice you decided not to answer this one.. It proves you WRONG again on your claim that images were skipped/suppressed. You don't like those questions, do you?


In amongst all that, did anyone notice that FoosM completely ignored and ran away from my challenge?

I KNEW it... He's hoping no-one noticed.

So, folks, just remember - FoosM is NOT up for a challenge to debate in a sensible, scientific and properly moderated environment.

Guess why.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by CHRLZ]