Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

Which brought me to that question in the first place.

Incorrect. What brought you to that question was a desperate attempt to make the undeniable evidence of the physical moon rocks literally disappear. By performing a bogus calculation, you tried to lead people into the belief that the astronauts were hauling body bags up the ladder into a craft that had no room for them. Shame on you, and shame on you for your condescending tone. You failed to demonstrate how terrestrial materials could be mistaken for lunar materials, you linked to a JW video that was itself plagiarized and was unable to prove in any way that NASA had actually started looking for meteorites in Antarctica before the 1990's (and, incidentally, only one out of every thousand meteors is a moon rock, so what did NASA do with the other 382,000 kilograms of meteors they had to collect -- melt them down and make a battleship?) and now you have the nerve to pretend that you "deliberately forgot" to include the LEC as part of a cunning plan to "trick" your opponent? How disingenuous can you get? The whole point of your argument was that the rock samples were too big, too heavy, the astronauts couldn't get them into the LM, etc. Your argument was totally demolished, and now you have the gall to act condescending and ask me to hunt for a video based on something I myself didn't say? Way to raise the bar, FoosM.

Unfortunately for you, such video exists... but why should I bother to link to it? You will proclaim it "obviously fake" for no reason. You will claim that the lens flares are "studio lights." You will scream that the radio antenna on the PLSS is really a "Peter Pan cable." Admit it, FoosM: you are a terrible loser.

Clearly this guy is a fake, because "Aussie" and "genius" are oxymorons.

reply to post by Josephus23

your emotion clouds your judgment

Let me say one thing on judgment: Your lack of grammar notes two things, A.) English is not you native tongue B.) You could care less about proper formatting

Either way its rather difficult for me to get anything you say with a rambling of wording incoherently together to be deduced from intelligence or as you say below:

i notice how you conveniently overlooked my statement about sarcasm
and deep space gravity

I am not attacking you, the truth remains, no sentence structure at all and we here are suppose to take you seriously about the things you claim? Or to know your being sarcastic? Please explain to me how that is possible from the what you posted, ohh btw is isn't. There are rules to life, yet you seem destined to do away with them away. No wonder it is extremely difficult to understand what you say, when you have disregard for format.

as i said

several prominent scientists said that moon travel was impossible right up to when we did it

and now we haven't gone back
and neither has anyone else
with our 1960's tech

what were you saying about innovation or invention or something

i guess that is only reserved for america

USA!USA!USA!USA!

you forgot my best quote by cicero
"those who employ emotion lack the ability to reason"

i would ask you to please stop the ad hominem attacks
they only show your desperation

Again I wasn't attacking you, if you take a minute to see that you haven't in the least formulated a single sentence, you might understand the fact that, YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE!

I'll tell you what; if you want to actually have a decent conversation, and have someone answer your questions, start by using a sentence, not a bunch of words throw about the page in non-sense.

Again this is not an attack, you must follow some sort of structure on earth or no one will take you seriously. how can they, if you don't make sense?

The truth is the truth.

Now again if you want to have answers about Apollo actually ask questions, the right way.

Other wise good luck in life, good day you answers are in the thread that is 4500 posts long.....Because I am not going to weed through gibberish for no reason.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Now, because I am SICK TO DEATH of the trolling, the handwaving, the ignorance and lack of research done by posters such as this, I am not providing (repeating) any links (many of which can be found on this thread) to help the incompetent (or deliberate troll) to prove their claims.

CHRLZ you have no leg to stand on with crap posts like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And are you not the one who has promised a definitive bible on space radiation?
Where is that?

Josephus, you said this:

i notice how you conveniently overlooked my statement

And yet YOU 'conveniently overlooked' this CHALLENGE::

WHEN you provide your calculations for how much fuel is required, and how much space it would take up, we can compare that to the published figures.
So, I CHALLENGE YOU. DO THAT. Calculate the fuel required for the manoeuvres, and then give us your figures.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ADMIT IGNORANCE and the WORST FORM OF HANDWAVING. Deliberately attempting to mislead the forum. SHAME ON YOU.

May I repeat - SHAME ON YOU. Why can you not simply admit YOU CAN'T DO IT?


So, Josephus, you ADMITTED that you just make up your claims. Thanks for the verification, but we can already see that.

several prominent scientists said that moon travel was impossible right up to when we did it

Please don't LIE.

In your first quote - " it may take " Do you understand what MAY means?

In your second - "challenge of stellar space flight" Do you understand the difference between STELLAR and LUNAR?

In your third - "The odds are" Do you understand what that phrase means? Hint - check first item above.

That's THREE out of THREE. In NONE of them did 'they' say moon travel was impossible.

Now you either can't read or are trying to mislead. Which?


And ANSWER the question:
Can you calculate the fuel required for the manoeuvres?

It's a simple yes or no. Then either show us the figures, or admit your are arguing from ignorance.



PS - I'm guessin' you won't go near the radiation request, but I haven't forgotten...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Which brought me to that question in the first place.

Incorrect. What brought you to that question was a desperate attempt to make the undeniable evidence of the physical moon rocks literally disappear.

DJ, I think I know what goes on in my own mind, thank you. Dont assume to know how I think to make me sound like Im lying.

By performing a bogus calculation, you tried to lead people into the belief that the astronauts were hauling body bags up the ladder into a craft that had no room for them. Shame on you, and shame on you for your condescending tone.

What part of my calculation was bogus? At any rate, what I was pointing out was that Astronauts preferred to carry their materials by hand up the ladder. In this case Rock Boxes. That would leave them with only one free hand to work their way up while wearing their pressurized bulky suits and gloves. Then, they would have to work their way through a small door and climb into a very small cabin on their hands and knees when it has been stated countless of times that bending in the space suit is very difficult. Now, Im interested to know how they pulled that off. And Im sure many other readers are interested as well.

and now you have the nerve to pretend that you "deliberately forgot" to include the LEC as part of a cunning plan to "trick" your opponent? How disingenuous can you get?

Talking about disingenuous. Should I call you a liar now, or do you want to apologize for your mistake? Because I did not deliberately forget to include information about the LEC due to the fact I posted the following:

The lunar samples were stored inside the ascent stage of the lunar module for the trip back to lunar orbit.
A conveyor system, shown here, was available but the astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is that not referring to the LEC?

The whole point of your argument was that the rock samples were too big, too heavy, the astronauts couldn't get them into the LM, etc. Your argument was totally demolished, and now you have the gall to act condescending and ask me to hunt for a video based on something I myself didn't say? Way to raise the bar, FoosM.

DJ, you must of woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Because your having either reading comprehension problems or short term memory issues.

1. My whole point is not that the samples were too big, or too heavy that they couldn't get into the LM.
2. My argument is not demolished its just getting started.
3. I did not ask YOU DJ, to go look for videos.

DJ, you sound awfully defensive... and with your short term memory issues- Wait a minute, DJ, are you an Apollo Astronaut?

Unfortunately for you, such video exists... but why should I bother to link to it? You will proclaim it "obviously fake" for no reason. You will claim that the lens flares are "studio lights." You will scream that the radio antenna on the PLSS is really a "Peter Pan cable." Admit it, FoosM: you are a terrible loser.

So now you are telling us you have found a video where Astronauts are climbing up the ladder into the LM while holding a rock box? And now you are too shy to show this video because it might be scrutinized by moi?

get updated.

they busted all of these on myth busters

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
get updated.

they busted all of these on myth busters

I think you need an update.
Myth busters got busted, ground and served.

And if you personally couldn't see through the Myth Busters tricks.
I advise you to take some courses in media manipulation and critical thinking.
And I mean no offense by that, but critical thinking is lacking in
today's government sanctioned and run education system.
No wonder we got so many people swallowing the propaganda pablum of governments.

hay guys use have got my head spining lol great stuff

reply to post by FoosM

Talking about disingenuous. Should I call you a liar now, or do you want to apologize for your mistake? Because I did not deliberately forget to include information about the LEC due to the fact I posted the following:

The lunar samples were stored inside the ascent stage of the lunar module for the trip back to lunar orbit.
A conveyor system, shown here, was available but the astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is that not referring to the LEC?

Busted:

edit on 16-10-2010 by FoosM because: labelling

Oops.

So what is your argument, exactly? I posted a video of the LEC in use. You insulted its quality. Why? It proves that the astronauts could get the samples in the LM. If the astronauts could get the samples in the LM, how does it support your hoax theory? Your post was a complete waste of space.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Talking about disingenuous. Should I call you a liar now, or do you want to apologize for your mistake? Because I did not deliberately forget to include information about the LEC due to the fact I posted the following:

The lunar samples were stored inside the ascent stage of the lunar module for the trip back to lunar orbit.
A conveyor system, shown here, was available but the astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is that not referring to the LEC?

Busted:

edit on 16-10-2010 by FoosM because: labelling

Oops.

How is that remotely a bust?
Do you see how long my post is?
And do you see what I wrote?
LABELLING (should be Labeling)
I didnt write, ADD A QUOTE

So what is your argument, exactly? I posted a video of the LEC in use. You insulted its quality. Why? It proves that the astronauts could get the samples in the LM. If the astronauts could get the samples in the LM, how does it support your hoax theory? Your post was a complete waste of space.

edit on 17-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Formatting

Folks, here is an example of somebody completely taking one part of an argument and hanging on for dear life.
I dont know DJ's age, but his answer has become childlike.
I dont know how else to describe it.

Again for emphasis

DJ

I posted a video of the LEC in use. You insulted its quality. Why? It proves that the astronauts could get the samples in the LM.

vs

NASA

A conveyor system... was available but astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder

If your cant figure out what is being said here, then how can this discussion go any further?
Nobody stated that conveyor system could not work, but it wasn't always used!
So where is your video of Astronauts climbing up the ladder into the LM while holding a rock box?

reply to post by FoosM


So what was the point of your lengthy post? Please summarize in a few words.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So what was the point of your lengthy post? Please summarize in a few words.

What!? Are you serious??

What sort of distraction is this?
You have just made several responses to my post and are now asking for a summary?
Obviously you must have read my post and understood what my issues were if you could write responses to it.
I also, in my post, make short summaries and observations of the information that I am providing.

So now where is this video?

reply to post by FoosM

What!? Are you serious??

What sort of distraction is this?
You have just made several responses to my post and are now asking for a summary?
Obviously you must have read my post and understood what my issues were if you could write responses to it.
I also, in my post, make short summaries and observations of the information that I am providing.

So now where is this video?

So you agree that my responses addressed your post, yet you refuse to actually refute any of them, claiming I do not understand your post. Let me summarize again:

You add up all the samples collected in terms of "sandbags," conjuring up an image of a boxing "body" or "heavy" bag. You even link to a picture of one. This is to establish that the samples "must" have been bulky. You go into irrelevant detail about the collection procedures to create the impression you have done some research. You show cross sections of the interior of the LM to imply there was not enough room to stow these samples. You mocking link to a photo of a soil container and ask rhetorically if the "Big Muley" would fit in there. You post videos of astronauts tripping and falling. Am I getting the gist here? Oh, and you imply the taxpayer's money is wasted and hint that the samples don't exist because they haven't been independently audited. So what is the argument here, exactly? That the moon rocks don't exist because the astronauts could not have gotten them into the LM? I showed you how they got them into the LM. Now you are saying the crux of the argument is that "NASA," ie; the on-line copywriter who maintains the nasa.history.gov website, claims that the astronauts preferred to carry them up by hand. How would he know? Maybe an astronaut told him the LEC was a pain in the butt. So now you insist that I post a video to "prove" something I didn't say? Okay, fine... but I'm pretty sure you'll do anything to avoid admitting that your argument has been totally demolished.


I apologize for the length and quality of the video. There are probably better ones at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, but they're in RealPlayer format.

Sorry if I sound cranky, but I just had three wisdom teeth extracted the other day and feel like someone literally busted my chop. And the vicadin ran out yesterday.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Josephus23

 

your emotion clouds your judgment

Let me say one thing on judgment: Your lack of grammar notes two things, A.) English is not you native tongue B.) You could care less about proper formatting

Either way its rather difficult for me to get anything you say with a rambling of wording incoherently together to be deduced from intelligence or as you say below:

i notice how you conveniently overlooked my statement about sarcasm
and deep space gravity

I am not attacking you, the truth remains, no sentence structure at all and we here are suppose to take you seriously about the things you claim? Or to know your being sarcastic? Please explain to me how that is possible from the what you posted, ohh btw is isn't.

There are rules to life, yet you seem destined to do away with them away. No wonder it is extremely difficult to understand what you say, when you have disregard for format.

as i said

several prominent scientists said that moon travel was impossible right up to when we did it

and now we haven't gone back
and neither has anyone else
with our 1960's tech

what were you saying about innovation or invention or something

i guess that is only reserved for america

USA!USA!USA!USA!

you forgot my best quote by cicero
"those who employ emotion lack the ability to reason"

i would ask you to please stop the ad hominem attacks
they only show your desperation

Again I wasn't attacking you, if you take a minute to see that you haven't in the least formulated a single sentence, you might understand the fact that, YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE!

I'll tell you what; if you want to actually have a decent conversation, and have someone answer your questions, start by using a sentence, not a bunch of words throw about the page in non-sense.

Again this is not an attack, you must follow some sort of structure on earth or no one will take you seriously. how can they, if you don't make sense?

The truth is the truth.

Now again if you want to have answers about Apollo actually ask questions, the right way.

Other wise good luck in life, good day you answers are in the thread that is 4500 posts long.....Because I am not going to weed through gibberish for no reason.

EVERYTHING that you just wrote was argument ad hominem
I do not use correct syntax because my period and comma became disable 3 day ago
on my keyboard

Your childish attacks only prove your lack of empirical evidence to refute me

I understand research
or at least the school that gave me a graduate job to work on my research degree understands

research

Anyone with eyes can see that everyone attacking me so prominently
And with such emotion is doing so

Because I hit nerve

Cheers

reply to post by FoosM


They had a NASA engineer onsite at the Mythbusters show

Just to make sure everything was approved

Look at the credits and do some research so that we can

Bust these fools trying to bust us

The mythbusters had been compromised

reply to post by CHRLZ


the amount of fuel needed was not known and is still not known

much of the original "intel" from NASA has either been lost

or misplaced

you try to find it
you try to make sense of it to prove me wrong
guess what
you can't
and the same argument goes for the radiation

read the argument that Phage and I had over the radiation several pages back

NO ONE KNOWS

but yet we still nailed that $#&* every time
with nary a problem

unlike the space shuttle which we blew up TWICE
and several other failed attempts to get into low earth orbit
but hey we are America
right

you also have about three quarters argument ad hominem in your post

i would repeat my Cicero quote but you probably already know it
But choose to overlook it

Cheers

reply to post by Josephus23


Bull.

the amount of fuel needed was not known and is still not known

More bull.

much of the original "intel" from NASA has either been lost

or misplaced

Yet more bull.

The rest of your post, above, was incomprehensible, and incoherent. AND, what I could understand, wrong yet again.

reply to post by weedwhacker


more argument ad hominem without producing the intel that i said was lost

you all rely on the same tactics
and they are failing horribly
anyone with eyes to see
and ears to hear
and a brain to think critically would know that i am speaking the truth

how about this

i challenge YOU
i challenge YOU to prove me wrong

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS

(i am not worried about it because you can't)

show me the numbers with links

Wenher Von Braun said that the amount of fuel needed to go to the moon and back was not possible

Here is a link from another website discussing the same issue and this cat also thinks that we went to the moon

But from 1952 to 1954, von Braun (and others including science fiction author Willy Ley, with illustrations by science fiction cover artist Chesley Bonestell), laid out a plan for how human beings could explore and eventually colonize outer space, in a series of articles in Collier's Weekly magazine entitled "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" As with everything von Braun did, the math and the engineering are impeccable. You see, there's a basic problem with the physics of long-distance rocket travel. To go higher, farther, or faster you need more fuel. Which adds more weight. To lift more weight, you need more fuel. Which adds more weight, ad infinitum. To get to the Moon in a hurry, we used an expensive, fragile, and impractical solution: increasingly smaller disposable rocket "stages." Just to get to orbit we used three disposable stages. Then a fourth stage was used to boost the combined lander/return vehicle to the moon. Then yet another disposable stage was used to land on the Moon. Then one more disposable stage, the size of a handicapped bathroom stall, was used to lift off from the moon; as soon as it reached lunar orbit, it was thrown away. Then the Earth-orbit-to-lunar-orbit rocket used the last of its fuel for the return trip to Earth orbit and then it, too was thrown away. Finally a tiny little bitty re-entry capsule, just big enough for the three guys to lie down in and to hold its own parachutes, was the only part of the space ship to return to Earth. Why so many disposable parts? Because it lets you throw away empty fuel tanks, and even though those fuel tanks were built of the lightest, thinnest, most expensive metal alloys available, every tiny little bit of weight saved was essential.

link to quote

look at what we have actually done that we can validate
and that is blown up several astronauts and spacecraft
just trying to get into low earth orbit

but the moon
not a problem
we nailed that &%#$ every time because we are america
even though the amount of DEADLY RADIATION on the surface of the moon was not known
and is still not known

but yet like several others you respond to impossible to validate propaganda
all released from NASA
cherry picking what you think validates your argument and forgetting the others

like this little nugget of information that people want to dismiss

Just recently NASA released an article stating that the only way to build a craft that could go
to the moon
was to make it out of concrete so as to protect the astronauts from radiation
beyond low earth orbit
because space past low earth orbit is AWASH with radiation
link to article

YOU SHOW ME THE NUMBERS

cheers

reply to post by Josephus23



Let me show you how illogical you posts sound and come across:

EVERYTHING that you just wrote was argument ad hominem
I do not use correct syntax because my period and comma became disable 3 day ago
on my keyboard
Your childish attacks only prove your lack of empirical evidence to refute me
I understand research
or at least the school that gave me a graduate job to work on my research degree understands
research
Anyone with eyes can see that everyone attacking me so prominently
And with such emotion is doing so
Because I hit nerve

You state you have a graduate Job in research yet you post with a computer keyboard on a forum with no comma or period keys!

Are you serious??? I mean anyone with a logical mind can see right through that noting the illogical fallacy of your statement.

Then you wonder why I cannot understand why you'd post something about no gravity in deep space or in 1928 the claim of traveling to the moon was impossible.

Sheesh man your haven't got clue what you say....

A Graduate degree; yet you type no regard to any format at all?

Whatever man you are full of it. Good luck...

BTW go by a new keyboard with the research job money! :shk: