Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

obviously weedwhackers explanation was to complicated for your FoosM.
I'll try it again.

You have 2 stations.
Lets call them A and B.
They have, say a 10 minute delay.
Both record the conversation.

at 0:00 A says to B "Hello"
it takes 10 minutes to arrive at B
at 0:10 it arrives
At 0:10:02 B says "Hello"
At 0:20:02 Bs signal arrives at A
at 0:20:04 A answers "Glad to hear you. we got a 10 minutes delay"
at 0:30:04 this arrives at B
at 0:30:14 B answers "Indeed we do"

Got it yet?

Apollo 9 Forgery

The PURE WHITE lightsource bouncing off the clear ocean in this video in this manner gives it away.

Also, notice that there are 3 light sources illuminating this "earth" (notice the arcs of the 2 light sources on each side of the main light source). Pause it at 1:27.

Real views of low earth orbit. Notice the haze at the horizon, the blue halo around the earth and the even spread of light:

Originally posted by debunky
obviously weedwhackers explanation was to complicated for your FoosM.
I'll try it again.

You have 2 stations.
Lets call them A and B.
They have, say a 10 minute delay.
Both record the conversation.

at 0:00 A says to B "Hello"
it takes 10 minutes to arrive at B
at 0:10 it arrives
At 0:10:02 B says "Hello"
At 0:20:02 Bs signal arrives at A
at 0:20:04 A answers "Glad to hear you. we got a 10 minutes delay"
at 0:30:04 this arrives at B
at 0:30:14 B answers "Indeed we do"

Got it yet?

But obviously that is not was is going on.
Because there is no delay in the transcripts.

And oh, somebody show me were these illusive uncut deep space walk videos are hiding.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by FoosM]

yawn...
Sunrise vs sun higher up+ different resolutions.

I hope you have at least managed to grasp the explanation for the delay only on one side yet?

Edit to add:
Ok you didnt
One more attempt:
You get a transmission with 2 hours delay.
Do you
a) wait for 2 hours before you answer, starting the moment when you get it
b) answer the moment you get it?

[edit on 11-6-2010 by debunky]

Originally posted by ppk55
hehe, you always say 'I'll be back'

The last time you made that smart remark, I demonstrated that for over 80% of the examples that you gave, I did indeed come back and do EXACTLY what I said. I see you didn't have the GUTS to come back and admit that 80% of your remarks were FALSE.

And how long has it taken for you to finally respond to this video request? And you did say that there was more than one...

This is one of the videos that shows the cutting from slow motion to normal speed, then back to slow. It's from Apollo 16. It's obvious at the 1.12 mark.

OK, let's see how well you can back that up, and properly analyse the video.

You claim it was made on Earth.

YES OR NO?

Now, show the calculation for the amount that a video would have to be slowed to simulate 1/6 gravity.


It's quite simple.

If you don't, I'LL BE BACK to do it for you, and you KNOW you can COUNT on that ONE, Walther..

And you also know what the next steps in the analysis will be, so it should be fun...

So let's see if all the smart remarks actually correspond to smart thinking and the ability to properly research. Are you up for it, Walther? You ran away from the radiation challenge (I hope you are looking forward to the results of that one, too!) but let's focus on this one for a moment...

While we are waiting for ppk to show us his research abilities, I'll just drop in a couple of figures, to give him a hint on where this is going.

9.8 m/sec² - the gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface (or 'g')

1.6 m/sec² - the gravitational acceleration at the moon's surface

Those figures are approximate, as it depends on your location, but they'll suffice to 2 sig figs. And are easily verified by non-NASA sources Now, eager researchers, how would you calculate the factor by which you would need to slow down an earthly video, to make it match what happens on the Moon?

I'll give you a hint - a video measures speed, eg metres/sec.

But the figures given above give acceleration, in metres/sec².


Now from that, even ppk should be able to work out the "slow-mo factor" required. Let's see how he gets on with REAL research... Have you got any comments on what I have just said, ppk? Can you work out the factor for yourself?

A REAL researcher (one without bias or a desire to mislead) could do that, and WOULD do that.

That REAL researcher would then apply that factor to the original speed footage, and examine the results.. Not just to one video, but several, like the jumping videos, the LRV footage..

Then that REAL researcher would post his results and conclusions.

Over to you, PPK.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by FoosM

You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.

Lets see:

1961-1963:

Kennedy announced that the US would land a man on the moon before 1970. This is one of the most important aspects of the moon program, and why it succeeded. The Soviets simply werent as committed.

The mercury missions achieved the first US manned orbital flight of the Earth. There were 28 Mercury missions in total, which was a comprehensive program to achieve multiple manned orbits.

1964-1965:

3 ranger missions that were impacts on the moon, to take images and video of the moon. This was the first step in building NASA's understanding of the moon, the terrain and where a landing may take place. It was also the first step in successfully navigating to the moon's surface.

Gemini 1 and 2 were executed as unmanned tests as presursors to manned orbital space flight caryying multiple astronauts. Things like heat shields were tested, while the craft was filled with equipment to measure data relevant to human survivability in future missions.

Gemini 3-6 were manned Earth orbital flights following on from Gemini 1 and 2. These flights were the first from the US with multiple crew members.

1966:

After the ranger missions, the next step was to land on the moon to demonstrate proof of concept and gather surface data. Surveyor 1 was the first non-impact landing and proved NASA's ability to achieve a controlled landing.

Lunar Orbiter 1 and 2 were NASA's missions to achieve a lunar orbit and collect further data on the moon in preparation for a manned mission. They collected images for possible landing sites, data on radiation intensity, micrometeroid impacts and other relevent data.

Gemini 8-12 achieved the docking of two space craft in orbit, as well as having spacewalks carried out by astronauts. There were the last Gemini missions; there were 12 in total.

1967:

There were 6 missions to the moon in 1967. Lunar Orbiter 3, 4 and 5 continued to collect the data that the first 2 Orbiter probes had been acquiring, to build a reasonable database of possible landing sites and collect enough data on radiation and other issues.

Surveyor 3, 5 and 6 gathered further data on the surface of the moon, as well as engineering data on things like strain on components on landing etc.

1968:

Apollo 8 was NASA's first manned lunar orbiter. The data gathered on previous missions confirmed that lunar orbit was acheivable and that it was safe enough for humans. This was a test of the command module and its functionality as well as continuing to obtain photos and other lunar data.

1969:

Apollo 10 was the second manned orbiter, and was the first test of the lunar module. The LM test was manned, and navigated to within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface before returning to the command module and docking.

Apollo 11, obviously, was the first manned landing.

All of the above missions have reams of data collected and are extensively documented. Information was shared with outside agencies, including the Soviet Union. All you have to do is read it for yourself and see how extensive it is.

It is clear that the sheer number of missions and manpower is what made the landing possible. There was something like 55 missions carried out in the above programs to get Apollo 11 to the moon. It was a clear step by step process to acheive the landing.

The USSR did not complete anywhere near this number of missions, as they did not possess the resources that NASA was able to muster from the US govt during the 1960's.

We already discussed how they "proved" they did it ad nauseum in this thread, of course.

Over to you, lets here the details of how a hoax was perpetrated. We can then play the role of "hoax sceptics" and poke holes in your explanation of how the hoax was committed and the steps involved.

Have fun

[edit on 12-6-2010 by zvezdar]

Wow. If we could cut out the ad-homs and rants this would be a great, definitive thread proving the proverty of the "hoax" - argument.

Every single argument brought forth has been thoroughly debunked here. With reason and with explanations, even when they were written with a temper. A very good thread, a perfect example of denying ignorance.

Thanks to all who have kept the nerve to asnwer most claims no matter how silly or redundant. Thumbs up for you guys.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


Wow. If we could cut out the ad-homs and rants this would be a great, definitive thread proving the proverty of the "hoax" - argument.

Every single argument brought forth has been thoroughly debunked here. With reason and with explanations, even when they were written with a temper. A very good thread, a perfect example of denying ignorance.

Thanks to all who have kept the nerve to asnwer most claims no matter how silly or redundant. Thumbs up for you guys.

Cheers!

The true irony of it all is that this thread was started by Jarrah White fanboy Winston Wu in order to stir up more hits for JW's intolerable videos. That point is indisputable as WW started the same thread on multiple message boards at the exact same time. However, instead of a victorious series of "attaboys" from credulous followers, JWs videos were ripped apart in just about every venue.

This explains why White steadfastly refuses to debate his videos away from youtube. He'd get destroyed.

He really is quite the coward.

reply to post by Tomblvd


THAT is fascinating news!!

Just typed "Winston Wu Apollo Hoax" into Google, got some hits....

First three to the 'davidicke' forum, the 'apollohoax.proboards' and 'ukskeptics'...never visited any of them, not sure I want to. But, it is interesting.

Good info! Nice to catch someone in the act.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

THAT is fascinating news!!

Just typed "Winston Wu Apollo Hoax" into Google, got some hits....

First three to the 'davidicke' forum, the 'apollohoax.proboards' and 'ukskeptics'...never visited any of them, not sure I want to. But, it is interesting.

Good info!

Nice to catch someone in the act.

There are quite a few:

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!


I think the proper term is "spamming".

reply to post by Tomblvd



He never listens, or accepts information, or admits when he is wrong. Humility is a part of life we all make mistakes.

I think the proper term is "spamming".

I think that has been more than proven.



Spam it is.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

He never listens, or accepts information, or admits when he is wrong. Humility is a part of life we all make mistakes.

One of the more hilarious things about Jarrah White is that when he makes a mistake, instead of admitting his error, he just makes another video where he repeats his mistake and then changes the subject.

A good example of that is the HAM radio issue. He went on and on about how HAMs couldn't possibly have tracked the Apollo transmissions because, as he took pains to show, the frequency bands available to HAMs weren't the same as the bands NASA used. When it was pointed out to him that the frequency restrictions he showed were for transmission, not reception, and that any HAM with the proper receiver and antennae could receive pretty much any radio transmission there was, he made a new video. The new video showed the frequencies again, but didn't admit he was wrong, but stated out the obvious that HAMs couldn't possibly have tracked Apollo because the earth rotated and any one HAM couldn't have had the spacecraft in it's field of view all the time. Of course, nobody ever said they tracked an entire mission, but that was Jarrah's way of weaseling out of his error.

Then there was his "class project"......

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM....your very, very long (and improperly formatted) post?

You showed nothing out of the ordinary --- in fact, I'm wondering if you have any toes left? Shooting youself in the feet, so often....

Not going to waste time and effort on the YouTube vids...only one.

The "bubbles" BS video is...BS. Not even a GOOD "hoax" attempt, at all. Really, it's sorta sad.

Oh...and if you would notice, THAT particular nutjob on YT? ('ArcAngel4Myke') is just one of the few very prolific posters there...probably what "inspired" 'JW'...and "Arc", like the bloke 'GreensMagoo', is a raving nutter --- or just incredibly, incredibly stupid, not sure which.

Now, before someone shrieks "He's attackiong, he's attacking!"....I think it's patenetly obvious to everyone with the slightest bit of common sense what those blokes are on about, and it ain't an understanding of science; nor comprehension and understanding of even the basics of physics, photography, etc. They exhibit a stunningly LACK of any of those things.

AND, what is most telling....often they disable comments on their stupid YT vids. Because? Well...because 99.9% of people can see them for the trash that they are. As are ALL "hoax" claims.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

He never listens, or accepts information, or admits when he is wrong. Humility is a part of life we all make mistakes.

I think the proper term is "spamming".

I think that has been more than proven.

Spam it is.

The irony runs even deeper. Mr Wu, aka WWu777, aka Vinstonas Wu (Winstonas?) also runs a site that I shall not further spam, where he proudly proclaims that he and his fellow 'truth' seekers:

(are) united to counter and expose ... fallacies, religious fanaticism, unscientific behavior, misinformation, denial

Yet that very same person VANISHED from this thread when a number of his falsehoods were exposed, for example the one about the LLRV ('Flying Bedstead') which I demanded he retract here and several times since. He has not had the intestinal fortitude to return and explain and apologise for misleading this forum - despite posting elsewhere.

So lets just recap (for the search engines) in regard to WWu777, aka 'Vinstonas Wu', aka 'Winstonas Wu'. (By the way, HE identified himself and his website on the very first page of this thread...)

Vinstonas Wu - misled the forum and posted falsehoods.
WWu777 - spammed JW's website and then vanished after just two days.
Winstonas Wu - posted misinformation despite preaching against such behavior.

I cordially invite Mr Wu to return and defend himself. He's got a lot of explaining to do...

reply to post by Tomblvd

One of the more hilarious things about Jarrah White is that when he makes a mistake, instead of admitting his error, he just makes another video where he repeats his mistake and then changes the subject.

As I have noticed, and make many videos he has.

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.

Lets see:

1961-1963:

Kennedy announced that the US would land a man on the moon before 1970. This is one of the most important aspects of the moon program, and why it succeeded.

Although we've been led to believe his speech was to propose a space race, if you read the text of the speech you find that his Moon proposal was actually near the end of a lengthy address. He was really there to propose a number of new programs, justified as buttressing defense and improving the economy during a recession. Space was a very small part of it... We're taught to believe that Kennedy was a space visionary, but the truth of the matter is that he was a shrewd politician who gambled that a Moon program would help him get re-elected in 1964... The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library released a tape in August 2001 of a meeting between JFK and NASA Administrator James Webb at the White House on November 21, 1962. This was about two weeks after the Congressional elections and a little more than two months after the Rice speech... The Space.com article reporting on the tape said that Kennedy can be heard telling Webb, "I'm not that interested in space."

The so-called "Moon speech" to Congress was actually a long.. recitation of spending programs he was proposing to confront a mild recession

The Moon mission proposal was near the end of the speech. Kennedy's sole justification for the program was that it would show the world our technology was better than the Soviet Union... In short ... it was a publicity stunt.

Further:

"I don't think Kennedy ... had any strong views on the long-term importance of space exploration."
"I don't think Kennedy, at the time he chose to do Apollo or any other time, had any strong views on the long-term importance of space exploration."
Historian John Logsdon, George Washington University

The Soviets simply werent as committed.

Soviet scientists knew, just like their American counterparts, it was impossible at the time and for a long time.

Lovell told Dryden that President Keldysh of the Soviet Academy had given three reasons for favoring automated unmanned spacecraft for exploring the lunar Surface:

Soviet scientists could see no immediate solution to the problem of protecting the cosmonauts from the lethal effects of intense solar outbursts.

No economically practical solution could be seen of launching sufficient material ... with reasonable guarantee of safe return to earth.

The Academy is convinced that the scientific problems involved in the lunar exploration can be solved more cheaply and quickly by their unmanned, instrumented lunar program.

Americans:

On the tape, Webb tells Kennedy that some of the nation's top space scientists doubt whether it is possible to send humans on a lunar voyage. "There are real unknowns about whether man can live under the weightless environment," he says. Committing to a manned lunar landing, Webb tells the president, could leave the country vulnerable to failure. Instead, Webb insists, landing on the moon should be only part of a broad effort by NASA to understand the space environment and its effects on human beings.


Kennedy's science advisor Jerome Weisner, also present at the meeting, agreed with his boss. Initially an opponent of the Apollo program, Weisner can be heard telling Kennedy that scientsts "don't know a damn thing about the surface of the moon," adding that the landing attempt could be "a terrible disaster" if NASA doesn't find out ahead of time what the lunar surface is like. (NASA at this time was already planning the unmanned series of Surveyor landers to answer that question.)

The President's proposal for a joint expedition to the moon was intended to be a step toward improved Soviet-American relations.

Later on the morning of 18 September, the President met briefly with James Webb. Kennedy told him that he was thinking of pursuing the topic of cooperation with the Soviets as part of a broader effort to bring the two [52] countries closer together. He asked Webb, "Are you sufficiently in control to prevent my being undercut in NASA if I do that?" As Webb remembered that meeting, "So in a sense he didn't ask me if he should do it; he told me he thought he should do it and wanted to do it. . . ." What he sought from Webb was the assurance that there would be no further unsolicited comments from within the space agency. Webb told the President that he could keep things under control.

Soviet Premiere Nikita S. Khrushchev reversed himself in early November, 1963 and had at the time, decided to accept U.S. President John F. Kennedy's offer to convert the Apollo lunar landing program into a joint project to explore the Moon with Soviet and U.S. astronauts...
"My father decided that maybe he should accept (Kennedy's) offer, given the state of the space programs of the two countries (in 1963)",

If these newest revelations are correct, the prospects of a visit to the Soviet Union by President Kennedy during the 1964 Presidential campaign, suggested by several former Kennedy administration staffers or a visit to Russia early in a Kennedy second term might well have cemented the joint lunar plan. And such a Kennedy/Khrushchev initiative might have staved off the planning of a coup that eventually removed Khrushchev from office in October, 1964.

"I think," Sergei Khrushchev said, "if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world." But a week after the reversal decision was allegedly made, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas and the decision was dropped.

Apollo ended and the USSR and US finally went forward with their joint missions

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.

Lets see:

1961-1963:

The mercury missions achieved the first US manned orbital flight of the Earth. There were 28 Mercury missions in total, which was a comprehensive program to achieve multiple manned orbits.

Project Mercury was the first human spaceflight program of the United States. It ran from 1959 through 1963 with the goal of putting a human in orbit around the Earth. The Mercury-Atlas 6 flight on February 20, 1962, was the first Mercury flight to achieve this goal.[1] The program included 20 unmanned launches followed by six flights with astronaut pilots. Early planning and research was carried out by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,[2] and the program was officially conducted by the newly created NASA.

So it took 20 flights before they launched 6 manned missions that culminated basically in 1 day stay in space. Far from anything like a moon trip.

1964-1965:

3 ranger missions that were impacts on the moon, to take images and video of the moon. This was the first step in building NASA's understanding of the moon, the terrain and where a landing may take place. It was also the first step in successfully navigating to the moon's surface.

The Ranger program was a series of unmanned space missions by the United States in the 1960s whose objective was to obtain the first close-up images of the surface of the Moon. The Ranger spacecraft were designed to impact the lunar surface, returning imagery until they were destroyed upon impact. A series of mishaps, however, led to the failure of the first six flights beginning in 1961 until Ranger 7 successfully returned images in July 1964, followed by two more successful missions.

So it took six failures before they managed to get three to work?

Gemini 1 and 2 were executed as unmanned tests as presursors to manned orbital space flight caryying multiple astronauts. Things like heat shields were tested, while the craft was filled with equipment to measure data relevant to human survivability in future missions.

Gemini 3-6 were manned Earth orbital flights following on from Gemini 1 and 2. These flights were the first from the US with multiple crew members.

Program objectives
To demonstrate endurance of humans and equipment to spaceflight for extended periods, at least eight days required for a moon landing, to a maximum of two weeks


To effect rendezvous and docking with another vehicle, and to maneuver the combined spacecraft using the propulsion system of the target vehicle

To demonstrate Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA), or space-"walks" outside the protection of the spacecraft, and to evaluate the astronauts' ability to perform tasks there

To perfect techniques of atmospheric reentry and landing at a pre-selected location

To provide the astronauts with zero-gravity and rendezvous and docking experience required for Apollo

One trip where they where they stayed 14 days in space.
No biology sent to the moon to test space environment or the moon.
Where are the tests for radiation?
The craft and rocket were not the same as Apollo's'
No test landing, orbiting, on or around the moon.
Most astronauts only spent 3 or less days in orbit.

I dont see how this program was anything close to preparing for Apollo.
And how many missions did they have 10? No, this is all just basic stuff here.

So so far they are only rudimentarily getting used to orbiting the Earth, and they managed to crash land probes on the moon.

reply to post by FoosM


Firstly, post your references. You've been caught out a million times in this thread misquoting or taking things out of context.

Secondly, nothing you posted here contradicts a (minor) point i made. Kennedy stated that the goal for NASA would be to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. They were focused on that goal and fulfilled it. Particularly after Kennedy was assassinated.

Thirdly, your idea that the Soviets believed it to be impossible to send humans to the moon has been thoroughly debunked already. Why do you keep bringing it up? And why, once again, is it brought up without references or context?

Lastly, you still havent tried to explain how a hoax would work. That was my challenge to you, and once again you are shirking it. Surely your amazing genius hoax believers have this one worked out? Cant you find it on youtube?

reply to post by FoosM


Wow you do know the first apollo mission to land on the moon is apollo 11. The prior 10 missions guess what they tested out the equipment in low earth orbit even launched around the moon all before a landing was made . So it wasnt an overnight thing tada were on the moon.In fact the first command module was overhauled to do problems discovered in orbit.