Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by backinblack

This pic from apollo 16 seems odd.

If I had a nickel for every time someone has said this in this thread. Okay, so you think it looks odd. Is that all you have to say? Isn't your motto: "If you have nothing to say, say nothing?" Yes, there are tracks all over the place. Some of them are visible, some of them have been covered over by the dust being disturbed by other tracks and footsteps. Is that analysis detailed enough for you, or do you have a more specific issue you'd like to raise? Sorry if I sound snappy, but this continual barrage of childish questions does nothing to move the thread along.

Here: let's get back to the original "Young Aussie Genius" question. Jarrah White has claimed that the Apollo spacecraft remained in Earth orbit. Where are the photos that prove this? There are none. What do you "skeptics" think of that? Are you just going to take his word for it, or are you going to demand that he provide proof?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

This pic from apollo 16 seems odd..
The footprints don't seem to follow in step.
and the rover tracks do not look right for a 4 wheel vehicle..There's only one track for each..

I'm sure someone will explain it..

Now that you've layed you cards on the table, so to speak, it's a good time to repost the statement you shrugged off earlier. You cannot call into question the current crop of information returned from lunar orbit when it is being transmitted from so many different countries.


The point he is making is that we have been told the US government created a conspiracy to hoax the lunar landings. However, now we have many other countries, China, India, Japan, Russia (and the other countries of the old USSR), and the countries of the ESA who have all sent probes either to the moon or deep space, and not one of them have raised a single red flag concerning radiation or any other "show stopper" the conspiracy theorists say would keep us from getting to the moon. So now we must believe that every country mentioned is in on the conspiracy, or things happened as they historically did.

Originally posted by Smack

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Don't bother. I just proved that they aren't interested in the truth. The video I posted removes any reasonable doubt from the equation. The debate is over - at least for reasonable people. If any of them can disprove the validity of the video and what it shows, then bring it. Otherwise they've got nothing.

Here it is again. Prove it wrong.

You know what, instead of showing us how its the same.
Show us how the landscape is different.
Its been 40 years.
Meteors & Micrometeorites would be hitting the surface of the moon on a daily basis.
No?
If so, them the landscape should be altered with new craters, etc.

No. That is for you to prove. You show us evidence that your assertion is true. The video speaks for itself.
I know that regardless of the evidence, you will never admit you were wrong, because your ego won't allow it.
You've proven that many times. But, you know what? You are wrong.

edit on 23-12-2010 by Smack because: (no reason given)

Way to pass the buck.
NASA and its avid followers claim that man went to the moon.
Therefore, its up to them to prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
Just like I wouldn't believe they landed men on Mars in the 1980's if they made such claims.
I dont care how many photos and videos they provide. Maybe you all would.

I, and many others have laid the groundwork for doubt regarding Apollo.
There should be an independent investigation into NASA's claims.
Because this comes down to theft on a massive scale and damaging years of science.

So, yes or no: Has the landscape of the moon changed since late 1960's?

Only two and a half years ago, if you had claimed to have seen a flash of light on the surface of the Moon, you would have

been quickly catalogued as a lunatic. I guess NASA has a lot of lunatics working for it, as it claims that since 2005, it has observed at least 100 flashes of light being produced on the surface of the Moon.

Oh NASA

"We started our monitoring program in late 2005 after NASA announced plans to return astronauts to the Moon. It seemed like a good idea to measure how often the Moon was getting hit. Almost immediately, we detected a flash," says lead investigator Rob Suggs from the Meteoroid Environment Office.

Did any Apollo astronauts on the ground or in the CM see any flashes or impacts?
I mean, there were supposedly up close and personal!

Meteoroids hit the lunar surface at a speed exceeding 48,000 kilometers per second. "At that speed, even a pebble can blast a crater several feet wide. The impact heats up rocks and soil on the lunar surface hot enough to glow like molten lava--hence the flash," said Cooke.

In periods of the year coinciding with the arrival of the Quadrantids or Perseids meteor showers, lunar flashes can rise to rates as high as one per hour, and although the impact rate decreases as the Moon exits the stream of debris, it would never reach zero. "Even when no meteor shower is active, we still see flashes," Cooke explained.

Additionally, these impacts produce other debris, which are thrown in all directions. In gravitational fields such as that of the Moon, a projectile could easily reach bullet-like speeds, and may produce significant damage to any object standing in its way. "Secondary particles smaller than a millimeter could pierce a spacesuit," Cooke added.

The travel distance of these secondary particles is now studied by Cooke and Suggs at the Vertical Gun Range at NASA's Ames Research Center by firing artificial meteoroids at simulated moon dust. In the meantime, the Moon continues to flash.

You mean astronauts can get shot by a drive by meteor ??

Why it is important: On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The moon, however, has no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.

So, I ask again, has the surface of the moon changed appearance after 40 years?
And do the NASA photos show this around the Apollo sites?

www.nasa.gov...
news.softpedia.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

Meteoroids hit the lunar surface at a speed exceeding 48,000 kilometers per second. "At that speed, even a pebble can blast a crater several feet wide. The impact heats up rocks and soil on the lunar surface hot enough to glow like molten lava--hence the flash," said Cooke.

Terrible fact checking by whoever wrote that article. 48.000 km/s is nearly 20% the speed of light. The value for meteoroid impacts is going to be around 48,000 miles per hour, not kilometers per second. Big difference there.

reply to post by FoosM

NASA and its avid followers claim that man went to the moon. Therefore, its up to them to prove it without a shadow of a doubt.

Who is trying to convince whom here? I don't need convincing that the moon landings occurred, and neither does the majority of humans living on this planet. It is well established history.
I am not interested in convincing you of what already should be beyond any rational doubt.
99.999 percent of humanity does not have a problem with this. Only YOU and a few other people, laboring under the delusion that they are smarter than everyone else, feel that this is a problem.

So, It is you that has this mountain to climb, not me. Would you stand up in a physics lecture and proclaim that Newton's laws were false, and then demand that the professor prove you wrong?
You have to do the work in order to persuade others that your theory is better than the one already firmly established and accepted by everyone else. So far you've failed completely in doing so.

Just like I wouldn't believe they landed men on Mars in the 1980's if they made such claims. I dont care how many photos and videos they provide. Maybe you all would.

That statement is an argument in favor of terminating any further discussion with you.
What I hear you saying here, is that no amount of evidence will persuade you that you could possibly be wrong. This has been a problem all along, you've conceded nothing, admitted no error, given no ground on any point, no matter how small. What impression are we to infer from that type of behavior, other than that an honest intellectual discussion is not your motivation for coming here?

I, and many others have laid the groundwork for doubt regarding Apollo.

What groundwork? You've set up camp on the fallacious, debunked, ideological bones of Bill Kaysing and Ralph René. I've seen nothing original come out of this thread or JW's videos. It really is pathetic.

There should be an independent investigation into NASA's claims. Because this comes down to theft on a massive scale and damaging years of science.

Are you aware that libel is a crime? You are awfully cavalier In your accusations. Be careful they don't come back to haunt you.

So, yes or no: Has the landscape of the moon changed since late 1960's?

Which part? I don't know, has it?
I already accept that we've landed there before. How can you convince me otherwise?

Originally posted by FoosM
So, I ask again, has the surface of the moon changed appearance after 40 years?
And do the NASA photos show this around the Apollo sites?

Exactly how much change would you expect?

The moon has a surface area of 3.793 * 10^7 km^2. Even assuming 1 impact every hour, and we define the each Apollo site as the 1 square kilometer surrounding the lander, there's a 1 in 6,321,667 chance any single impact will happen at an Apollo site. That means an impact at any one of the Apollo sites will happen, on average, only once every 360 years.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Look at the long shadows from the lander, they reach all the way to the crater on the right. These are some very long shadows. How tall is the Lunar Module? Can the Lunar Module cast a shadow like that?

Of course it can! Go outside when the Sun is rising/setting and pay attention to the shadows around you.

www.travelpod.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Way to pass the buck.
NASA and its avid followers claim that man went to the moon.
Therefore, its up to them to prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
Just like I wouldn't believe they landed men on Mars in the 1980's if they made such claims.
I dont care how many photos and videos they provide. Maybe you all would.

I, and many others have laid the groundwork for doubt regarding Apollo.
There should be an independent investigation into NASA's claims.
Because this comes down to theft on a massive scale and damaging years of science.

One last salvo before the X-mas cease fire. You, and many others have done nothing to establish anything but your refusal to deal with reality. It is not NASA's job to convince anyone of anything. NASA's mission was and is to do basic aerospace research and development. It is also charged with providing data about the Earth, atmosphere and outer space environments towards practical ends. It also does pure research on the solar, planetary and deep space environments in the hope that some day these, too, will have practical applications. The data NASA has provided to engineers and scientists of all nations has never been called into question by the professionals who use it on a daily basis. Falsifications on NASA's part would either be instantly spotted, or lead to tragic results. As a source of information, NASA rates an A+. The only complaint by these professional consumers is that they want more of their product, faster.

The only people that have a "problem" with NASA's product are a very small handful of people like Jarrah White and his followers. They are generally so scientifically illiterate that they do not understand how light forms shadows, or how the acceleration due to gravity is uniform irrespective of an object's "weight." They are unclear on basic physical concepts like momentum and inertia, and have a difficult time understanding basic perspective.

Not content with flaunting their ignorance of the physical world, they insist upon wreaking havoc on the humanities by flagrantly engaging in pseudo-history. The historical methodology is based upon the interpretation of the preponderance of evidence. This evidence consists of primary sources, physical artifacts and often arcane studies in related fields (climatological studies, etc.) One tool that historians do not use is the belief that if one single detail is wrong or contradictory, then an event never happened. This is the entire pseudo-historical methodology of the Moon Hoaxers. They pour over photographs looking for something that doesn't look right. They compare subjective accounts by astronauts, often interviewed years after the actual mission, to find "contradictions" about things. That is not how an historian proceeds. They rate their sources based on perceived or proven reliability, and most scientists and engineers, as I said, rate NASA A+.

On the other hand, these pseudo-historians do not apply this "house of cards" methodology to the work of their "peers." Surely, if the entire recorded history of manned space flight falls apart because one astronaut remembers seeing stars and another does not, what does it mean when Jarrah White forgets about the International Dateline and an entire video goes down in flames? No, this in no way affects his credibility as a "researcher," does it?

Jarrah continuously makes claims without any evidence that would be acceptable to a proper historian. The astronauts were spirited out of the spacecraft before launch? Provide a witness or a videotape. The spacecraft never left Earth orbit? Show us a picture. The landing was shot in a studio? Again, give us something besides "there's something odd about this picture." How about some clandestine photos of the set? A group of SFX artists who have decided to break silence? Something? Anything!

Peace out!

Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good night!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

This pic from apollo 16 seems odd.

If I had a nickel for every time someone has said this in this thread.

Okay, so you think it looks odd. Is that all you have to say? Isn't your motto: "If you have nothing to say, say nothing?" Yes, there are tracks all over the place. Some of them are visible, some of them have been covered over by the dust being disturbed by other tracks and footsteps. Is that analysis detailed enough for you, or do you have a more specific issue you'd like to raise? Sorry if I sound snappy, but this continual barrage of childish questions does nothing to move the thread along.

Here: let's get back to the original "Young Aussie Genius" question. Jarrah White has claimed that the Apollo spacecraft remained in Earth orbit. Where are the photos that prove this? There are none. What do you "skeptics" think of that? Are you just going to take his word for it, or are you going to demand that he provide proof?

How missleading can you get?? You quote one line from my post and then say is that all I have to say..
No, the whole post was this..

This pic from apollo 16 seems odd..
The footprints don't seem to follow in step.
and the rover tracks do not look right for a 4 wheel vehicle..There's only one track for each..

With the image posted...
Seriously you guys don't wont a debate, you just wan't to attack..

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What was left behind was around 8' tall..
Still amazing there was no blast crater..

Seems your "just asking questions" routine is getting a bit stale.....

lol, someone asked about the shadow.
I pointed out it was only the lander stage and gave a height..
Yes, I do find it odd there's no blast crater..

reply to post by Tomblvd

The point he is making is that we have been told the US government created a conspiracy to hoax the lunar landings. However, now we have many other countries, China, India, Japan, Russia (and the other countries of the old USSR), and the countries of the ESA who have all sent probes either to the moon or deep space, and not one of them have raised a single red flag concerning radiation or any other "show stopper" the conspiracy theorists say would keep us from getting to the moon. So now we must believe that every country mentioned is in on the conspiracy, or things happened as they historically did.

We hear very little out of them countries..China even showed an old NASA pic for some odd reson..
So how do you know there's no radiation concern.?
They haven't sent a manned flight yet. Not even Russia who were close to the US in space flight..

reply to post by jra

Also, just to add. The LRO doesn't orbit at an even 50km. It goes as low as 37km, so there should be some images that are in the high 30cm/pixel range.

yes I'm aware it orbits at different altitudes..
It's therefore listed with a MAXIMUM resolution of 50cm/pixel..Not minimum..

So that vid is still highly enhanced to quote 15cm/pixel..

reply to post by backinblack


Sorry, I did not intend to mislead, I was only drawing attention to the fact that every two or three pages someone will have the "original idea" of posting a photo and making the claim that "something looks wrong." You will note that I actually addressed your stated concerns later in my post. Again, my apologies for being so dismissive, but there are a lot of tracks there, and we've been down that road before. What is your theory, exactly? I would be happy to debate it. Incidentally, since you are new to this thread, the etiquette that has evolved around the posting of Apollo images on this thread is to specify which frame the photo is; that way we can examine it in higher resolution and compare it to nearby photos. It makes analysis easier. Again, my apologies.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

Sorry, I did not intend to mislead, I was only drawing attention to the fact that every two or three pages someone will have the "original idea" of posting a photo and making the claim that "something looks wrong." You will note that I actually addressed your stated concerns later in my post. Again, my apologies for being so dismissive, but there are a lot of tracks there, and we've been down that road before. What is your theory, exactly? I would be happy to debate it. Incidentally, since you are new to this thread, the etiquette that has evolved around the posting of Apollo images on this thread is to specify which frame the photo is; that way we can examine it in higher resolution and compare it to nearby photos. It makes analysis easier. Again, my apologies.

Thanks for that..OK, I'll try to note numbers in future but I really only noticed that pic because I was trying to work out the height of the lander for another poster..
BTW, Merry Christmas..

Originally posted by DJW001
Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good night!

Merry Xmas everyone

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So, I ask again, has the surface of the moon changed appearance after 40 years?
And do the NASA photos show this around the Apollo sites?

Exactly how much change would you expect?

I suppose none, since landings and take-offs dont seem to disturb lunar soil.
Only walking on it does.

reply to post by FoosM

I suppose none, since landings and take-offs dont seem to disturb lunar soil.
Only walking on it does.

As usual Foosm you claim shows how little you research or pay attention to what you post.

Here is a nice video that shows the Lunar module disturbing the lunar surface.



Another bogus claim that takes like .00002 seconds to show your wrong.

Merry Xmas....

reply to post by theability


Is that actual video?
It appears enhanced..Very bright spots of color, red, green etc shooting out..
I've not seen colors like that before in an ascent vid..

reply to post by backinblack

Is that actual video?
It appears enhanced.

You hoax people and your "it appears" bs again?

How many times has the gut feelings of it looks odd have to be brought up?

What you think has nothing to do with it.

That has been proven.

If you think its fake then Show your work.

I'll be waiting for your beyond reasonable doubt proof.

GOOD LUCK!