Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

It is only you and other NASA lovers who hold fast to this belief that Jarrah is intentially trying to decieve. Evidence of his errors is NOT evidence of deception on his behalf. This is what I don't dig about you NASA lovers... you make it personal.

tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...

reply to post by manmental

and why did IMAX have to use water to shield the same type of film that supposedly made it to the moon and back when they filmed the ISS being built?

Shield from what?
I was just reading at the NASA site..
Radiation at the ISS altitude is supposed to be minimal as it is not high enough to reach the Van Halen Belt..,,

So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Pinke

And what is photo doctoring? Levelling? Balancing? And what methods were avaliable then that could be effective and efficient for the task? I find the concept of doctoring to be too vague and wide to consider. No one seems to be able to agree on exactly what was doctored, how it was doctored, and the evidence for it.

I know the poster was refering to the NEW pics from the LRO that show the old landing sites..
So it's not a case of what methods were available then..They are CURRENT pics..

And the ones posted here HAVE been enhanced rather a lot..
ie: maximum resolution of LRO shots is quoted at 50cm/pixel.
the pics shown here were enhanced to around 15cm/pixel..

That doesn't make them fake but they have been enhanced dramatically..

reply to post by backinblack


Oh that makes more sense with the photos then.

I haven't looked at them mega closely, but I imagine it would be standard alogrithms/apps used to enhance those photos.

I imagine there will be future images anyway, but by then am guessing the story will have changed so that NASA got there before everyone else and left the equipment there. Until space travel becomes the norm there will always be people that doubt its existence.

It's like when people thought the platypus was a hoax.

And just for the record ... am not saying I totally approve of how sharp people can be in this thread. I'm pretty aware that people on both sides of this conversation can be sharp ... I just don't think Jarrah started the conversation on his best foot, and he does kind of invite and encourage negative attention with his attitude at times.

Originally posted by Pinke
reply to post by backinblack

 

Oh that makes more sense with the photos then.
I haven't looked at them mega closely, but I imagine it would be standard alogrithms/apps used to enhance those photos.
I imagine there will be future images anyway, but by then am guessing the story will have changed so that NASA got there before everyone else and left the equipment there. Until space travel becomes the norm there will always be people that doubt its existence.
It's like when people thought the platypus was a hoax.

lol, I don't remember the platypus hoax..
Must of been before my time..Strange creature though I think it's cute..

On topic..No amount of pics of equipment on the moon will convince some of a manned mission..
I guess that's partially reasonable given that most of the debate revolves around whether man can stand the conditions, not machinery..

What the "enhanced" pics did was show paths supposidly made by the astronauts footprints..
I'd say that's where the use of enhanced pics are questioned..
Did the original pics show the same trails clearly enough to prove man walked on the moon?

I lean towards they did but enjoy the debate..
I've yet to see 100% undeniable proof despite what Weed says

reply to post by FoosM


Still digging through Wikipedia, Came across this and just had to share:

Item 12 - telescopes

12. Apollo astronauts took no telescopes with them to the moon.... First, I know of no reliable source that uses this as an argument that they didn't go to the Moon. Secondly, the reply doesn't make much sense. There was no room to take a large telescope, no allowance for the weight, and no time to use it. And the reason for putting a telescope in space is not to be 200,000 miles closer to something - it is to be above the atmosphere. Unless there are some reliable sources for this, I think it should be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this part. First, I've never heard any reliable source say that the fact that they didn't take a telescope is evidence that they didn't go. Secondly, I don't follow the arguement that they didn't take a telescope is in any way evidence that they didn't go. Thirdly, the response is not accurate. Bubba73 (talk), 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. It should stay out unless someone finds a good source. Man with two legs (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read it as an argument of 'proof'. Apparently, packing a telescope is to be expected when visiting space and a lack of one is evidence enough that you weren't there. Kind of like going to the Grand Canyon and not taking your camera. Naturally it displays a basic lack of understanding of the purpose of the missions, and the costs and minimal value of taking a telescope to the moon. I'll have a look see if I can locate a cite. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That was posted a day or two ago by an IP. I'm surprised they didn't complain that the crew failed to bring along tricorders and light-sabers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki discussion.
(Emphasis mine.)

In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.

FoosM? Was that you who posted anonymously on Wiki?

Originally posted by backinblack


On topic..No amount of pics of equipment on the moon will convince some of a manned mission..
I guess that's partially reasonable given that most of the debate revolves around whether man can stand the conditions, not machinery..

What the "enhanced" pics did was show paths supposidly made by the astronauts footprints..
I'd say that's where the use of enhanced pics are questioned..
Did the original pics show the same trails clearly enough to prove man walked on the moon?

Directly from the LRO site Note that these pics were taken and released only a week or so after the probe reached orbit.

Originally posted by backinblack
Did the original pics show the same trails clearly enough to prove man walked on the moon?

Yes, absolutely:

Uncalibrated, raw image from the LROC of the Apollo14 site:


Full image (it's large) here.

Similar images for Apollo 12 and Apollo 17. Those are all original images, no resolution-increasing deconvolution done on them.

Originally posted by WWu777
Check out this 3 part segment where he shows an untouched flag waving on the moon, where there is no air. Then he cites the Lunar Journal's 6 speculative explanations for the moving flag and debunks them all, with simple experiments, precendents and deduction.

MoonFaker: The Flags are Alive
www.youtube.com...

This is the only video I watched, and I don't buy it. I am pretty sure it has been said before but his experience is a massive fail. I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure static charges behave differently in the moon than they do on earth!

Edit: wow, this thread is old. This must have been discussed to death already.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

This entry was also amusing....any way to locate that number....what is it an IP address?

Exactly, it is an IP address. All of the "pro-Jarrah" Wikipedia vandals, er, editors, tend to post as "anonymous," and are identified, per Wiki protocol, by their IP address. I admit I'm an idiot about these things, that's why I'm asking for help.:

Are you asking members to trace IP's for you.??

Nobody asked, I did it anyway. (Not much you can do with an IP from ages ago, unless its static, and this one isn't)
So all I can say: Its japanese. So there is a fair chance the user was at the time in japan as well.

Mind if I ask: what's the general consensus on this guy? I don't want to read 300+ pages.

Originally posted by PoorFool
Mind if I ask: what's the general consensus on this guy? I don't want to read 300+ pages.

From what I can tell, it's that he ignored a lot of physics, tested for moon environment in an earth environment, and was in general a bit silly with his presumptions and video editing. You can believe that the landings were a hoax, but this guy does not support it.

Originally posted by PoorFool
Mind if I ask: what's the general consensus on this guy? I don't want to read 300+ pages.

Here are two quick examples proving he is a fraud and a liar:

Thefirst one is one where he uses a "perspective expert" to analyze an Apollo photo and declare it fake. It turns out the "expert" is actually his teacher who admits in an email to not being an expert, but only helping her pupil out in doing a project.

The second one is a video where he consciously ignores an important qualification from a table he uses to make some incorrect calculations.

There are literally hundreds of examples, but his videos can be extremely repitious and confusing, so if you come across one that looks odd, give us the link and we'll have a look.

reply to post by Varemia


reply to post by Tomblvd


Thanks. That was exactly my impression when I watched the flag video. I can't believe people are so quick to believe anything.

reply to post by Tomblvd


Thanks for the pic Tom & Nat..

They look convincing enough.
Even without enhancment I'm not sure what else other than man could have made the trails...

Originally posted by manmental
Hi Peeps...

Here is what I like about Jarrah... contrary to what some NASA lovers will have you believe, not only does young Jarrah admit to making mistakes, but he also creates quite cool video rebuttals to the criticisms of his films.

This to me is a very mature way to conduct ones arguments... rather than the 'I know better than you' way many on ATS like to proceed.

This film here talks about IMAX protecting its film from radiation using bags of water. Jarrah readily corrects some errors and admits to his faults... y'all you should learn something from that.

Has this one been 'debunked'?

Well this is why I am also curious about where in space these astronauts conducted their deep space EVAs and how was the film in the CM, and on the moon for that matter, was protected?

Apollo 17 CSM pilot Ron Evans performs a deep space EVA (en route to Earth) to retrieve film cartridges. 17 December 1972.

Operated in orbit 69 miles above the lunar surface, the optical bar panoramic camera produced stereo photography covering about 1.9 million square miles, or about 15 percent of the Moon’s surface. Each photographic frame recorded an area 211 miles wide by 13.5 miles long with such fine detail that an object smaller than 6 feet (2m) in size can be examined and its position pinpointed.

So did they take pictures of the LM and astronauts on the moon?
And how does the LRO photos compare?

The exposed film was retrieved from the SIM bay during the early portion of the trans-Earth coast.

In A, the astronaut (CMP) is shown egressing through the CM hatch. During the EVA, all three astronauts are exposed to the vacuum of space and hence all must wear their spacesuits. In B, the CMP has moved to the vicinity of the SIM bay and is preparing to remove the film cassettes from the Lunar Mapping and Panoramic Camera's. He anchors himself to the spacecraft by inserting his feet into special foot restraints, termed ‘golden slipper’, because they were formerly gold coloured. In C, the EVA astronaut is seen removing the film from the mapping and stellar camera’s in one cassette. Another astronaut (usually the LMP) remains ‘standing’ in the Command Module main hatch, from where he documents the film retrieval procedure with photographs and verbal descriptions. From here he also assists the EVA astronaut during his transfers to the SIM bay and passing the retrieved film cassettes to the third astronaut (usually the CDR) who has remained within the Command Module. The film cassettes are safely stowed within the CM for their return to Earth.

Below is a training photograph of Apollo 17 CMP Ron Evans passing a Panoramic Camera film cassette to LMP Harrison H. Schmitt.

history.nasa.gov...

Evaluation of Ionising Radiation (X-rays) on
Ektachrome ISO 160 Professional 120 Colour
Reversal Film

Further reading

6) CONCLUSION
Even a modest radiation dose to the film (5 rem and
greater) would produce significant reduction of
contrast and image density in the resulting Ektachrome
ISO 160T transparencies.

So what shielded the film?

Compare this to the Russians:

The camera carried 40 frames of temperature- and radiation-resistant 35 mm isochrome film.

en.wikipedia.org...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by DJW001


That was posted a day or two ago by an IP. I'm surprised they didn't complain that the crew failed to bring along tricorders and light-sabers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki discussion.
(Emphasis mine.)

In later missions why didnt they bring equipment to photograph stars?
No excuse for that.

FoosM? Was that you who posted anonymously on Wiki?

-------------------------


Nope.
Why would I bother to post anonymous when Im using a false identity?

But I want to add this to those who say Astronomy wasn't important:

American Astronautical Society, Francis Narin, IIT Research Institute. Astro Science Center - 1966 - 1188 pages

Preliminary programs in radio and classical astronomy appear feasible and are possible candidate experiments for early post-Apollo missions.

Apollo: a pattern for problem solving - Sep 1969 - Page 79
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol. 25, No. 7 - 88 pages

USES OF APOLLO Travel to the moon is the first step in man's endeavor to expand his domain beyond the confines of his ... Travel to the moon and to the planets, observing the stars and galaxies from beyond the "dirty basement window"

The Bee-hive: Volumes 44-49
United Aircraft Corporation. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, United Technologies Corporation - 1969 - Snippet view

After Apollo 17, he believes man probably won't return to the moon for another ten to 15 years. ... man being able to look out at and learn about the universe through telescopes on the moon without having to peer through the atmospheric

The new golden book of astronomy: an introduction to the wonders ...
Rose Wyler, Gerald Ames - 1969 - 104 pages

Astronomers want the astronaut's view. They want to lift telescopes above the atmosphere and get clear, sharp images. ... The next step will be to place telescopes on the Moon. Then astronomers will no longer have to look through the ...

Amazing stories: Volume 38
1964 -

Of course astronomers want to set up telescopes on the Moon. No air means no clouds, no glare at night, no weather to interfere with their view of the universe. Earth's air also blocks out all but a small slice of the rays beamed out by ...

etc.

Originally posted by PoorFool
reply to post by Varemia

 

reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Thanks. That was exactly my impression when I watched the flag video. I can't believe people are so quick to believe anything.

Well then why dont you read NASA's opinion on why the flag moved and then come back an tell us how you feel about their theories.
LOL.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by backinblack


On topic..No amount of pics of equipment on the moon will convince some of a manned mission..
I guess that's partially reasonable given that most of the debate revolves around whether man can stand the conditions, not machinery..

What the "enhanced" pics did was show paths supposidly made by the astronauts footprints..
I'd say that's where the use of enhanced pics are questioned..
Did the original pics show the same trails clearly enough to prove man walked on the moon?

Directly from the LRO site Note that these pics were taken and released only a week or so after the probe reached orbit.

So what?
The photos could have been in NASA's possession all the time.
NASA sent plenty of probes to scan the surface of the moon.
They could have even used observatories like the Hubble.
Its still evidence from NASA and not third parties.

Russians sent probes to the moon, where are their pics of the LM etc?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by backinblack


On topic..No amount of pics of equipment on the moon will convince some of a manned mission..
I guess that's partially reasonable given that most of the debate revolves around whether man can stand the conditions, not machinery..

What the "enhanced" pics did was show paths supposidly made by the astronauts footprints..
I'd say that's where the use of enhanced pics are questioned..
Did the original pics show the same trails clearly enough to prove man walked on the moon?

Directly from the LRO site Note that these pics were taken and released only a week or so after the probe reached orbit.

So what?
The photos could have been in NASA's possession all the time.
NASA sent plenty of probes to scan the surface of the moon.
They could have even used observatories like the Hubble.
Its still evidence from NASA and not third parties.

Russians sent probes to the moon, where are their pics of the LM etc?

If the Soviets could have outed the Americans having hoaxed the moon landings, they certainly would have done it. They would have loved to have embarrassed the Americans.

But why would the Indians and the Japanese scientists confirm the American landing sites if there was no evidence? I'll trust the Japanese and Indian scientists over Jarrah White rubbing a balloon against his head.