Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Pinke
A wierd segway for a moment here ... and something I almost fell for yesterday ...

I saw my friend with his son this morning. His son kept asking him repetitive questions over and over again about if he could go to the local arcade. This kept up for sometime. Eventuallly, my friend accidently responded incorrectly to one of the questions and said something he didn't mean to. He was so busy answering the question the same way everytime that he just didn't think.

What ensued was a two hour drama llama session about how the boy's father had lied to him, and why did he lie to him, and how his father had to honor his word.

This story made me think. Keep asking Phil Plait or anyone repetitive questions they're bound to slip up sooner or later. It's just a knee jerk reaction. I saw the video that was posted earlier and looked at it through some scopes. Instantly I saw some issues - I knew it was pointing towards fake, so I wasn't really thinking. If I had posted my full initial thoughts of what I assumed I saw on my scopes I would have got some details wrong and someone would've said ... Pinke why you lie to us? If Pinke says this then everything she say must be brought into question!


[edit on 28-7-2010 by Pinke]

Pinke, I dont get you.
I really dont.

Phil Plait's job is supposedly to debunking moon hoax believers and promote NASA. At least he seems to be making a living (maybe not much) from doing so. He challenged Jarrah and Jarrah responded by showing inconsistencies & contradictions with NASA and Phil himself. Phil has simply not responded back to Jarrah's questions. And this has been via emails and forums.

Jarrah decides after being ignored for some time, to actually see the man face to face to have three questions at least answered. Phil repeatedly tells Jarrah that he will answer his questions if Jarrah can arrange a Q&A session. Jarrah does so and Phil skips out.

How does that compare to a child bothering his father? What you are doing is trying to associate Jarrah as being a child and Phil the poor father who is bombarded by his rude son.

No, a better analogy is Jarrah is an investigative journalist and Phil is a dirty politician running from hardball questions.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
How on Earth has this gone on for almost 150 pages? When I first saw this thread I figured it would be a couple of pages before it died out. I havn't read the thread but WTF guys! I've never seen anything that can't be easily explained.

Did I miss anything?

Yes Tons.
That should answer your question why this thread is so long.
Though it would be a few pages less if we subtract the personal attacks.
And by the way, what you provided as debunking is off base.

Did I just whip some Australian kids butt?

No.

I don't get you really ether. You still haven't altered your theories/contridictions/answered to the various facts you've posted that are false or incorrect. Yet you're jumpiing on Phil Plait or whoever. And suddenly after pages of calling me slow you're suddenly against personal attacks?

I'm guessing someone had a talk to you or something.

The questions:

1. How can you allege that the idea that NASA and the government would murder their own astronauts is "a particularly loathsome accusation", when in fact the CIA's General William H. Craig came up with Operation Dirty Trick: a proposal to blame John Glenn's possible death aboard Friendship 7 on the Cubans and use his death to justify all out war?

I'm sure there's some buzzword for this ... straw person or whatever but it's a catch-22 unanswerable question. Not because its smart. Not because it brings facts, but because it's an open ended question. I could use this logic to say that any cooporation or government did or didn't do something. Would it make it any more real? No. Does Phil's answer to this question bare any significance. NO!

2. How can you frequently allege that Bill Kaysing said "any kind of space travel is impossible", when in the exact same interview that you refer to Kaysing explicitly says "I will concede that certain unmanned vehicles might have made it to the moon. The Russians are supposed to have sent some unmanned vehicles to the moon. And possibly our Surveyor did land on the moon."?

I still need to watch all the way through this section of the videos but ... so what? People make mistakes. People sometimes say the wrong thing. Jarrah has done it. You've done it plenty of times in this thread and not answered to it, yet you still retain your own integrity. Does this make Phil's points less valid? No.

Does this make Bill Kaysing any more reliable? No.

3. How can you allege that there were no major solar flares during the Apollo missions when NOAA's Comprehensive Flare Index for Major Flares explicitly logs 30 major x-ray solar flares during the time eight of those missions were supposedly in cislunar space?

There are pages and pages on this stuff. So very many pages. Again, I'm no physicist, but the information is freely available for Jarrah to read and accept or reject.

Here is how Jarrah deals with people. I have only censored a swear word.

This is the video link:
il.youtube.com...

These are the comments:

Satweavers 2 years ago
Once again, Jarrah. You try so hard to avoid the obvious. Check my evidence. Go to PhotoBucket dot com. Search "satweavers", click "view satweaavers album", select "Moon Hoax" then look at sub albums, "Moon Light", "Moon Shadow" and "Astronaut Shadows". Without any trick photography or plastic buckets, the mystery of the shadows is fully explained.

#
WhiteJarrah
2 years ago
"My goodness, Jarrah. You try so hard to avoid the obvious. Check my evidence."
I've seen you're feeble excuses a million times, I am tired and have more important things to do than give my time of day to propagandists like you. So please, f**k off.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago

This is Jarrah's response to these photos here: s58.photobucket.com...

Jarrah's response isn't changing my mind about anything. Phil was much nicer to Jarrah than Jarrah was to satweavers. I'm not even a Phil Plait fan.



Edit: Forgot to add quote boxes >.<

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Pinke]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Pinke]

Out of curiosity Foosm, what are your credentials? You are obviously very experienced in physics, space travel and science in general (that's sarcasm by the way). You seem to feel that you are correct all the time when arguing with those of us who actually do have experience and knowledge in these areas so please enlighten us with your qualifications and experience in the matter?

Originally posted by Pinke
Here is how Jarrah deals with people. I have only censored a swear word.

This is the video link:
il.youtube.com...

I'm glad you posted that Pinke as it's an excellent opportunity to remind Foosm that the expert was just Jarrah's school teacher who was acting out a part for his school project. Foosm keeps trying to forget about this, so I feel it's my duty to keep reminding him. Credit to CHRLZ for finding this:

He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).
educationforum.ipbhost.com...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by FoosM

I was more looking for this, but thanks

At ignition, the ascent stage rises at about 3 meters/sec2 (about 10 feet/sec2), creating a accelerating force equal to about one-third of Earth's gravity, only twice that what the astronauts were experiencing standing in the cabin. Acceleration increases gradually until cut-off, when it will have built to about two-thirds that of normal Earth gravity. After the ascent stage reaches an altitude of only 50 feet (15 meters), it pitches about 54° face down to build horizontal velocity as it climbs.

Could you read the stuff you quote FoosM? It might be helpfull.
After 15 meters of the spacecraft inclines to 54° to build horizontal velocity. Now, if the engine is off after that first initial plume/flash, how does that work? It would just continue to rise slightly tilted.

Now: Where in the Apollo 11 moonwalking footage was double exposure used, and for what reason?



[edit on 28-7-2010 by debunky]

Look, just to throw a spanner in the works for a second...

Knowing that if the astronauts pierced their suits by even a micrometre their blood would boil and they would be dead in seconds ...

does this sort of behaviour seem responsible ?




and ... how it really should be .. from the shuttle spacewalks..
notice the picture breakup .. didn't see any of that from the moon.
(btw the shuttle vision is with 40 years of technological development)

edit: and the other strange thing ... the below video whilst taken in vacuum doesn't appear to be in slow motion ? crazy huh ! check out 1.50



[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

....does this sort of behaviour seem responsible ?

You wouldn't need to ask that question IF you would do some bloody research!

OR, just scroll through this thread....the issue has been raised, asked and aswered already!

What is most about this is, not only did you use some crap YouTube videos that try to use very ordinary events (a few falls) that occured to the Astronauts on EVA on the Moon....THEN you include one about an EVA on orbit, Shuttle mission STS-114???

Are you trying to now infer that the Space Shuttle is "faked" too??? :shk:

OR....your claim is because in one video from the Shuttle, there was a temporary video break-up, you say:

...notice the picture breakup .. didn't see any of that from the moon.

WRONG! There were many times when the live feed from the Moon had similar break-up events!!! !!!


~~~~~

Wait, adding here, after reading your post, and this note again regarding the Space Shuttle Discovery:

...and the other strange thing ... the below video whilst taken in vacuum doesn't appear to be in slow motion ? crazy huh ! check out 1.50

WHAT are you talking about?? "slow motion"????

Honestly....IF this is the level of comprehension you have regarding real space flight, then I don't know how to help you....someone may have to personally take you by the hand, and tutor you one-on-one...
~~~~~~


I've said it before....I suggest you take a step back and do some actual research, because this isn't making you seem as if you are asking intelligent questions --- since all of these have answers readily available after just a bit of searching....

...BTW, when you Google (or other internet search method) the EVA suits, look for HOW they were constructed....I.E., how many layers and what types of materials were used....





[edit on 28 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW, when you Google (or other internet search method) the EVA suits, look for HOW they were constructed....I.E., how many layers and what types of materials were used....

So you're saying they should have attempted those acrobatics above, that if their suit split, their blood would boil within seconds ?

edit: I'm sorry, but in the last 40 years I haven't seen any astronauts attempting anything like those 'amazing' apollo falling over feats.

Klutz sums it up.

In fact, if anything, the recent ISS and shuttle EVAs have proven how dangerous ventures into a vacuum are. They have my absolute respect.

However the videos above of apollo astronauts blindly stumbling over is beyond belief.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


"attempted acrobatics"??????

What the heck is wrong with you, man?

They tripped! And stumbled, and fell. Landing on their knees, and hands. The suits were/are VERY tough!! (You didn't go to look this up, did you??)

It certainly would have been more serious IF they had fallen backwards, and damaged a critical component of the PLSS.

Oh, and "blood boils"?? Someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies....jeeze.

They aren't going to "spring a leak" form merely stumbling to their knees, on the Lunar regolith!!! The surface of the Moon isn't strewn with sharp shards of flint!

The vacuum issue? Here, and you should have done the research for yourself!:

How long can a human live unprotected in space?
If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. (skip)......but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Honest....I am slightly embarrassed for you....





[edit on 28 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You kind of have avoided the question of should they have attempted those falling over routines in the youtube videos above, if they knew their suit would split and they would die within seconds ? blood boiling is not hollywood movies, look it up. try google.

WOW look how these ISS astronauts at 10 seconds and 35 seconds .. are in NORMAL speed, even in a vacuum .. amazing.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Is this your argument PPK? Really?
What do you think their space suits are made from? Don't you think they may just have thought ahead and constructed it in such a way that damage is minimised? Do you think stab vests and bullet proof vests are fake too?
Why would their blood boil if they had a hole that was 1x10^-3 of a MILLIMETRE?
Did you RESEARCH before making such a dumb statement PPK?
Evidently not... Having a hole in the suit does not become an issue until pressure is lost. You can actually have relatively large holes on modern suits, which you would know if you RESEARCHED, forgetting that it's actually OBVIOUS!
The effects of exposure to the vacuum of space without any suit are not like in the movies as you seem to think, which is ironic considering you obviously use them as a base reference of what's real while claiming the reality of Apollo is fake!

Exposure to space without a spacesuit

The human body can briefly survive the hard vacuum of space unprotected[2], despite contrary depictions in much popular science fiction. Human flesh expands to about twice its size in such conditions, giving the visual effect of a body builder rather than an overfilled balloon. Consciousness is retained for up to 15 seconds as the effects of oxygen starvation set in. No snap freeze effect occurs because all heat must be lost through thermal radiation or the evaporation of liquids, and the blood does not boil because it remains pressurized within the body. The greatest danger is in attempting to hold one's breath before exposure, as the subsequent explosive decompression can damage the lungs. These effects have been confirmed through various accidents (including in very high altitude conditions, outer space and training vacuum chambers).[3][4] Human skin does not need to be protected from vacuum and is gas-tight by itself. Instead it only needs to be mechanically compressed to retain its normal shape. This can be accomplished with a tight-fitting elastic body suit and a helmet for containing breathing gases, known as a Space activity suit.
en.wikipedia.org...

At NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (now renamed Johnson Space Center) we had a test subject accidentally exposed to a near vacuum (less than 1 psi) in an incident involving a leaking space suit in a vacuum chamber back in '65. He remained conscious for about 14 seconds, which is about the time it takes for O2 deprived blood to go from the lungs to the brain. The suit probably did not reach a hard vacuum, and we began repressurizing the chamber within 15 seconds. The subject regained consciousness at around 15,000 feet equivalent altitude. The subject later reported that he could feel and hear the air leaking out, and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil.
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And as for your comments regarding the interference on the Shuttle footage, I take it you don't understand the difference with communications between Earth-Moon and Earth - LEO? Don't answer that again PPK, you already did with your ridiculous statement.
Tracking a transmission from the Moon with a ground based station is hardly difficult and is certainly much less likely to be interrupted than communications with a structure orbiting the earth in LEO travelling at nearly 28,000km/h at an altitude of approximately 360km.
Transmissions from the ISS are relayed to satellites in geosynchronous orbit before being relayed to Earth, keeping everything aligned on it's journey around the planet is not even in the same ball park as tracking the moon.
Don't you get a little tired of this? You're way out of your league, you really need to stop wasting your time gazing blankly at Jarrah White video's and should try investing some time in educating yourself in the topics you claim to be interested in. You're an embarrasment!

reply to post by ppk55


You puzzle me even more...

You kind of have avoided the question of should they have attempted those falling over routines ...

Do you even read other people's posts, and links??

THEY TRIPPED AND FELL!!! They didn't do it ON PURPOSE! (When you trip, and fall...is it on purpose? maybe if you're a clown in the circus, or a slapstick comedy performer, there is occasion to make intentional "falls"...but these guys merely stumbled).

What makes you think it was intentional??

Actually, if I recall, (have no sound, will have to look it up to be certain) but the guy who fell the most was "Jack" Schmitt. Apollo 17.

It was deemed important to send a person actually very well trained as a geologist up on a mission, and that was Schmitt. He was different, from the "traditional mold" of other Astronauts of that era, as he was not coming from having a background as a test pilot. Just as today's cadre' of astronauts come from many different walks of life, and NOT ALL of them have to be pilots!

Jack Schmitt was NOT a pilot initially, as I said his expertise was geology. he DID learn to fly, as part of his over-all Apollo Astronaut training. But, as a 'pilot', he was well inexperienced by comparison to the others...BUT, his flying skills were not a requirement. They were taught to him, as a basic knowledge set, to give him better understanding, and because at least in event of an emergency, he could chip in, in a pinch.

Really....do you not have a library near you, where you live???

I very strongly suggest you go find one, and look for some books on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions....there are plenty to choose from, and you will have a MUCH bertter ability to understand all of this if you'd just take time to read and learn...you can't get that depth of education solely from the Internet.
~~~~~

Still, to whet your appetite, there ARE sources, even on the Web. Read about Schmitt (that is also a movie title, with jack Nicholson, BTW...About Schmidt...spelling is different...pretty good film, actually...nothing to do with this, though....):

Astronaut Group 4 (The Scientists) was the fourth group of astronauts selected by NASA in June 1965. While the astronauts of the previous three groups were required to have college and some advanced degrees, they were primarily chosen for their test pilot backgrounds. The six members of Group 4, on the other hand, were chosen for their research and academic backgrounds..

en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 28 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So you are just going to ignore the hundreds, nay. thousands of people who watched the Apollo missions lift off....
Edit to correct typos...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DJW001]

Launching a rocket into LEO does not prove they went afterwards to the moon. Dont forget, Apollo went into an orbit around the Earth below the VABs.

And objects in LEO are readily visible to the naked eye. Why did no-one see it? If the Soviets spotted it, they would have screamed bloody murder.

Anyway, I asked why the guy who keeps posting JWs videos should still have any credibility.

I am the LORD your God

And then he goes on to say:

Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.

mattdabbs.blogspot.com...

So I ask again: Why should we believe the guy who keeps posting JW's videos?

I'm sorry, but you don't do this if there's even a 1% chance your suit will break.



To make it simple. suit rupture = instant death

I think sometimes we are being desensitized to how dangerous a vacuum is.

This extremely dangerous, life threatening environment is what the 'astronauts' were exposed to.

Whether falling over, playing golf, dropping feathers and hammers, or doing burnouts in the rover .. come on !

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You kind of have avoided the question of should they have attempted those falling over routines in the youtube videos above, if they knew their suit would split and they would die within seconds ? blood boiling is not hollywood movies, look it up. try google.

WOW look how these ISS astronauts at 10 seconds and 35 seconds .. are in NORMAL speed, even in a vacuum .. amazing.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

What planet are you from?
Normal speed? Slow motion? You realise that the ISS is in orbit and therefore freefall, so they are effectively WEIGHTLESS? You realise the Moon had 1/6 earths gravity and therefore neither situation is anywhere near similar? Vacuum has nothing to do with it bar the absence of air resistance, which is only a valid comparison when comparing to an environment with atmosphere, not between the Moon and orbit of which neither have an atmsophere!

Falling over routines? What so you've never tripped over? Someone makes a compilation of astronauts tripping or slipping up over the span of several missions and in your rather strange mind this contributes as 'falling over routines?'
And it's you that needs to go on Google, there are COUNTLESS scientific references to what happens to the Human body when exposed to a vacuum and as usual PPK, you guessed it, you're wrong. It's time to step aside and admit defeat, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by ppk55
I'm sorry, but you don't do this if there's even a 1% chance your suit will break.

It's a good job there wasn't anywhere near a 1% chance then.

To make it simple. suit rupture = instant death

Wrong

What are your credentials PPK? Consider that a direct question we require an answer to.

I just realised I busted in on the thread and missed Jarrahs's new videos. Sorry.
Here's the first one ... I'm sure you know how to see the others.

It appears to be one of five.
The Mythbusters and Phil Plait bit is AWESOME !



HA! how dodgy is that Phil ..hehe To be honest I have no idea of his part history, but man, in this video he's something else.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


ppk, will you PLEASE do some research!!!

This is tiring, and if you're trying to be funny, it ain't working.

I will assume you aren't a 10-year old child, asking innocent questions out of wide-eyed naitivee'?? You are a full-grown thinking adult, with all your faculties intact???

YOU can look up space suit materials, construction, and resistance to punctures/tears/damage, and their survivability design to protect the human inhabiting them.

If I can find this so easily, then YOU can too!!!! :

3. How thick is the space suit?
Approximately 3/16" thick, 11 layers of materials.

AND:

Suit materials include: ortho-fabric, aluminized mylar, neoprene-coated nylon, dacron, urethane-coated nylon, tricot, nylon/spandex, stainless steel, and high strength composite materials.

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 28 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by FoosM

And by the way, what you provided as debunking is off base.

There you go again. What did he provide as debunking? Why is it off base? Why do you not quote what he provided as debunking so we can judge for ourselves? And why should the statement "what you provided as debunking was off base" prove anything. As usual, you are ignoring what was said, concealing it and refuting it simply by saying "I declare it refuted."

You do realize everyone can see you do this? Consider your debunking of debunking debunked.