Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Tomblvd

Every country that has sent a probe, not only to the moon, but out of LEO, has had the capacity to measure radiation. It is a very easy procedure to connect a detector to the telemetry. If radiation were some kind of "show stopper", the scientists and engineers, not to mention the politicians of ALL these countries would all know something was amiss. Yet we have seen not one scientist or engineer question Apollo. Not one. Why?

Is it true they checked radiation levels years after the apollo missions and found them to be 30-40% more that earlier figures?
I know there are a lot of rumours around..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Every country that has sent a probe, not only to the moon, but out of LEO, has had the capacity to measure radiation. It is a very easy procedure to connect a detector to the telemetry. If radiation were some kind of "show stopper", the scientists and engineers, not to mention the politicians of ALL these countries would all know something was amiss. Yet we have seen not one scientist or engineer question Apollo. Not one. Why?

Is it true they checked radiation levels years after the apollo missions and found them to be 30-40% more that earlier figures?
I know there are a lot of rumours around..

What specific radiation are you talking about?

A link would be helpful.

reply to post by backinblack

I know there are a lot of rumours around..

What does a rumor have to do with FACTS, Jesus backinblack, get off the gut feelings!

You wanted to debate, yet you talk about rumors, what a joke!

Rumors, hearsay, have nothing to do with Apollo being a hoax!

How hard is that to figure out?

This is exactly what I am talking about, the debate in this thread is over rumors, well said back in black!

Nothing to do with science nothing to do with fact, RUMORS!

I must have lost 50 IQ points posting in this thread as long as I have.

Such a sad thread. :shk:

reply to post by Tomblvd

What specific radiation are you talking about?

A link would be helpful.

I'll try and find it..Maybe in another thread.
I think it was from the moon surface though..

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by backinblack

 

I know there are a lot of rumours around..

What does a rumor have to do with FACTS, Jesus backinblack, get off the gut feelings!

You wanted to debate, yet you talk about rumors, what a joke!

Rumors, hearsay, have nothing to do with Apollo being a hoax!

How hard is that to figure out?

:

Remember this??

I am through with you

You don't debate, you attack..
Not interested Mate, so rant on all you please. dn:

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

What specific radiation are you talking about?

A link would be helpful.

I'll try and find it..Maybe in another thread.
I think it was from the moon surface though..

You don't need another thread. It's been discussed here already.

Neutron Radiaton on the Moon

Whenever the lunar regolith is struck by cosmic rays, neutron particles are emitted.

But as is stated in every article about the subject, it only becomes an issue on long duration stays on the lunar surface:

“We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days,” says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

So no, there is nothing about radiation that would call into question the Apollo missions.

Originally posted by theability
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!

edit on 24-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)

The video clearly states a resolution of six inches per pixel, that's roughly 15cm/pixel.
The MAXIMUM resolution of the LRO is listed at 50cm/pixel..

that will capture select portions of the Moon's surface at 0.5-meter resolution.

www.planetary.org...

So you tell me..Was it enhanced??
ie: was I right and you were wrong??

Or can you show me where the LRO takes pics at 15cm/pixel???

Facts....Now debate them..!!!!!!

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why are you only focusing on Apollo 17?

Wow Foosm that is what mission it was in the video, you goof!

I know how hard it is for you to actually focus on one topic, like throughout this whole thread, you can't pay attention to detail about anything!

edit on 25-12-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)

I posted
Apollo 14

The videos you posted Weed prove you wrong.

Why would you do that?

reply to post by FoosM


???

It was necessary to fully quote the entire post? Just to claim the videos "prove me wrong"???

When, in fact, the videos are of HISTORY, factual HISTORY...documenting aspects of the Apollo missions.

Still we will all be matriculating in anticipation of your next pearls of wisdom...as to exactly HOW and WHAT they "prove wrong".....Come One, Come All!!! Gather round, no need to stand on ceremony....everyone is welcome, equally!

Originally posted by FoosM
The videos you posted Weed prove you wrong.

Could you perhaps explain how they prove WW wrong? Lets try to have an actual discussion for once.
2nd line

Originally posted by weedwhacker
www.russelland.com...

It really is astonishingly easy to discredit each and EVERY "hoax" claim, each and EVERY time....

Good night, Moon "hoax" believers, wherever you are......

edit on 25 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Weedwhacker - duh. You left out the most interesting paragraph in that nice article!!

Image Transform, then a startup company in North Hollywood, brought about the other improvement. They demonstrated to NASA, using Apollo 15 footage, their new proprietary system for enhancing video. NASA had them bring their system online for Apollo 16. Now the converted video from all EVA's was shipped to California, enhanced, returned to Houston, and then distributed to the network pool, all in real time.

Hmmmm. A "startup company" . "North Hollywood". "new proprietary system for enhancing video" Hmmmmm. Sounds like some early CGI company, or more accurately CIA company.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
The videos you posted Weed prove you wrong.

Could you perhaps explain how they prove WW wrong? Lets try to have an actual discussion for once.
2nd line

Oh I've had plenty of discussions.
But lets see what we can do with this one.

First by close observation you can see that the videos show disturbances right next to the LM.
Second, by a post I made on this very thread regarding flag moving positions during two missions.
AFAIR NASA says it was due to outgassing or testing...

As a matter of fact, it looks like it even blew away the antenna.




Can anybody find any antennas next to the LM from the LRO pictures?
LOL.

Third, by accounts such as

After less than a day on the lunar surface, it is time to go. Using its one small engine, the top part of the Eagle rises up. Dust blows everywhere. "I looked up long enough to see the flag fall over," Aldrin recalls.

and

Flag and debris motion during cabin depress and RCS hot-fire check

From a cabin depress...

Speaking of hot-fire... this might create a whole new discussion in itself:

compare:


to

and


They use the same/similar fuel, right?
The engines are used for the same principle. right?
So why do we clearly see exhaust from the Shuttle but not the LM?

Burn Baby Burn



Keep on Burnin'

Oh wait... that was Apollo 3....
and what is happening at the end of that vid?

IMO, either you have to choose Apollo as being true like a three dollar bill or the STS missions.
Because they cant both be right.



teacher.scholastic.com...

Its been posted before,
but since we are discussing it once more,
I should be posted again.

1967 vs 2009.

basically no difference




Its like NASA is using the same plaster of paris moon they used for Apollo for new missions.
Im starting to think that maybe they are hiding something there on that moon.
All this talk about water on the moon, rash of alien invasion movies, leaders preparing for ET visitors, etc.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Hmmmm. A "startup company" . "North Hollywood". "new proprietary system for enhancing video" Hmmmmm. Sounds like some early CGI company, or more accurately CIA company.

Or a company that specialized in real time video color correction. They have since become part of Ascent Media. Digital technology was in its infancy then. What do you suppose they did in the few seconds between the signal leaving the earth station and it arriving at the press pool?
Image Transorm Inc.
(Incidentally, among their other sinister activities, they helped restore the 3D version of "Hondo," starring John Wayne.)

reply to post by FoosM

Its like NASA is using the same plaster of paris moon they used for Apollo for new missions.

Either that, or the Moon just doesn't change very much. What sort of changes would you expect in the terrain? Meteoroids large enough to cause cratering that would be visible at these resolutions are extremely rare. The meteors you see at the height of a brilliant shower are the size of a grain of sand.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Its like NASA is using the same plaster of paris moon they used for Apollo for new missions.

Either that, or the Moon just doesn't change very much. What sort of changes would you expect in the terrain? Meteoroids large enough to cause cratering that would be visible at these resolutions are extremely rare. The meteors you see at the height of a brilliant shower are the size of a grain of sand.

The point is that the maps are similar in scale.
Maybe I should of said they are using the same cameras.
LOL.

reply to post by FoosM

Im starting to think that maybe they are hiding something there on that moon.

Well, what do you think they are hiding?

Please explain.

reply to post by FoosM

The point is that the maps are similar in scale.
Maybe I should of said they are using the same cameras.

Why shouldn't they be to the same scale? You can enlarge a photo to any desired size. Am I missing something here?

reply to post by FoosM


Really....once again?? You have been shown the specifications, but you "play" dumb, and post garbage "question" after garbage "question"? Is this in hopes that somebody will come along and fall for your nonsense?

Just to focus, from that last barrage of videos and "questions":

They use the same/similar fuel, right?
The engines are used for the same principle. right?
So why do we clearly see exhaust from the Shuttle but not the LM?

You are, here, specifically referring to the Space Shuttle RCS thrusters firing demonstration video, compared to the Apollo Lunar Ascent Module docking footage examples.

Firstly, IF attention had been paid to the Shuttle video (and attempts at deceiving the thread readers, again, were not the main priority) THEN the mention in that video that was being filmed AT "NIGHT" should have stood out as a prominent clue as to the enhanced visibility of the RCS thruster hypergolic gasses, as they interacted and ignited.

But, most glaring fallacy (and, is this intentional? For THAT is a question that bears asking): The chemicals used on the two spacecraft are NOT "same/similar" as you 'queried'.....surely, even a "hoax believer" should be capable of doing actual research, yes???


Here, research done FOR you, and various combinations, and space vehicles used in, compiled for your convenience:

Common hypergolic propellant combinations

--Aerozine 50 (a hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) mix) + nitrogen tetroxide - widely used in historical American rockets, including the Titan 2; all engines in the Apollo Lunar Module; and the Service Propulsion System in the Apollo Service Module

--Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) + nitrogen tetroxide - frequently used by the Russians, such as in the Proton rocket and supplied by them to France for the Ariane 1 first and second stages (replaced with UH 25); ISRO PSLV second stage

--UH 25 + nitrogen tetroxide - large engines: Ariane 1 through Ariane 4 first and second stages

--Monomethylhydrazine (MMH) + nitrogen tetroxide - smaller engines and reaction control thrusters: Apollo Command Module reaction control system; Space Shuttle OMS and RCS; Ariane 5 EPS; Draco thrusters used in SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage and Dragon spacecraft.

en.wikipedia.org...

See there? The Command and Service Module used different hypergolic fuels for RCS propellant. The Lunar Module used the same propellant for the RCS as for the engines. When the various substances react, they will have different visual appearances...and as already mentioned, the LIGHTING makes a big difference, too!!

(Is a match flame brighter in direct sunlight, or reflected sunlight, or in dark of night??)


______
Any of us on this Board have written until our fingers are (figuratively) blue. Since it seems (some of) you are incapable, or unwilling, to actually understand this topic properly, and instead prefer to twist each and every word, in order to promote the skewed (and grossly incorrect personal opinion) that Apollo was "faked" and "hoaxed"....so, a video, and NOT one from "YouTube" this time.....

Think of this video, below, as an online University lecture example. Because, well....it is!! Nearly two hours long, it certainly won't win any awards for production values, but in order to receive REAL information from REAL professionals and scientists and academics, it is valuable for just a smattering of insight into the types of technical challenges that were faced, and met, not only on the Space Shuttle, but prior to that spacecraft as well. The ability to understand mechanical principles, and how machines really work (instead of SCOFFING at them) could prove useful as many ATS members grow into adulthood, and even beyond, into their declining years of old age....

(You will note, also, a fine selection of MORE videos, as part of the full course series, to provide further research and study opportunities, to improve understanding and blow away ignorance.)..

academicearth.org...

The guest lecturer begins to mention the RCS, and its design history and progression, at about 10 minutes in....
...and if you come away from that video WITHOUT at least watching and listening to what the experienced gentleman has to say starting at 16:30...you will miss a brief pearl of wisdom and perspective that speaks LOADS to all of the "hoax believers" out there, who continually poo-poo verified and irrefutable Apollo footage....because they seriously lack the comprehension and grasp of the subject.