Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


WHY should he NOT ONE of JW reasons to claim a hoax is correct, if you want look from the start of this thread and see why JW is a DH!

reply to post by WMD_2008

I'm not sure that 2.5 cm figure is correct. I can't find any other mention of that kind of resolution for any KH satellites. By my calculations, even at a very low 200 km orbit, you'd need a nearly 4-meter mirror just to get infrared coverage at that resolution. If you want coverage of the whole visible spectrum, and were at a more realistic (but still low) 400km orbit, you'd need a mirror over 14 meters in diameter. That's far larger than even the largest telescope mirror in use on earth (10.4 m).

Mate, can we simply move past a silly debate that is really not of any relavance to what we are meant to be discussing?
I'll say I was wrong if it means then this wasted arguement can stop..
We only have the LRO pics of the moon, it's specs are not disputed..
Lets leave it at that..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
STILL NO LINK YET BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING BS!!!! is that not right you have saw an aerial photo and thought it was a sat picture thats why you CANT POST a link.

Here is something for your little mind to chew on

First posted by jra on here.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half of the picture is a still taken from the flim by the Astronauts as they left the Moon the other half from the LRO FUNNY even the tracks match

Mate. grow up..
WTF does it matter to the thread??
The pics we have from the LRO are what they are...
Resolution is a MAXIMUM of one pixel per 50 cm..

I dont care if a pic from the moon can read my credit card details here on Earth..
It DOESN'T change what the LRO resolution was..And that was pretty darn low......

You can all rant on and star eachother for lies all you wish..
Fact is I condisered what can be done with earth based sats as irrelevant,,
and posted so, but kept getting nagged by a child to prove an irrelevant point..

After getting bored with the childish nagging I posted the NASA link clearly showing the spy sats with 2.5cm res...More than high enough to confirm my off the cuff remark that we could see the make of a car.

WMD_2008 agrees that the old sats COULD take pics at 2.5cm res but we are no longer useing them and have gone backwards to a maximum of 50cm res..
We can still argue on about a topic I think was irrelevant from the start, or we can move on to real debate..

Lets see an off the cuff remark you think is irrelevant lets look again

Originally posted by backinblack
I say we can usually make out what make of car it is..

You could have never seen such a picture its not off the cuff its a BLATANT LIE!
See we dont have to do things like that we can post FACTS because YOU cant or just DONT want to understand them doesn't change the FACT they are FACTS!!!!

Strange thing is 50cm/pixel seems to be good enough for earth sat images so why not LRO please explain!!!

Every single item JW brought forward has been debunked and if you really want to see what a clown he is look at his footprint experiment.

Hi nataylor

i will stick up for blackinblack here I did find a reference to both 7cm and 2.5cm images but it was basically a missle with a telescope in it ,flew in an arc got to about 92 miles up ,example picture below from the kh-7 did about 150 missions SO no longer used.



Now is that really much more detail than the LRO pics you can see its a mast you can see buildings ....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Jarrah White's video titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On" illustrates conclusively that there is no clear winner in the Moon Hoax Debate. In the video Jarrah is openly engaging Phil in a bit of dialogue. Jarrah's video illustrated that Phil was not willing to entertain any questions from Jarrah at that time. Phil Plait exhorted in front of a large audience "..if anyone wants to argue my strength and my passion BRING IT! OK? I'm ready for you."

Jarrah White's video titled "Phil Plait - Bring it On" illustrates very conclusively that Jarrah was in fact "BRINGING IT" to Phil Plait and that Phil didn't want any part of it!

Jarrah's video would be admissible in court to obtain a restraining order. JW has documented himself stalking Phil Plaitt. Plaitt has excellent reason to avoid Jarrah as he has a well documented record of editing comments to distort them. Think about it: it's not as though Jarrah were a reporter trying to interview an important politician who's just been indicted in a sex and drugs scandal... he's a hoaxer who has been doing everything possible to damage a perfectly competent professional's image through lies and distortions. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see JW in the dock for libel.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Hi nataylor

i will stick up for blackinblack here I did find a reference to both 7cm and 2.5cm images but it was basically a missle with a telescope in it ,flew in an arc got to about 92 miles up ,example picture below from the kh-7 did about 150 missions SO no longer used.



Now is that really much more detail than the LRO pics you can see its a mast you can see buildings ....

edit on 30-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

A KH-12 is a $1 billion satellite that resembles the Hubble Space Telescope, except it is looking at our planet. For security reasons, there are no published orbit schedules for the imagery spacecraft. They are supplemented by the 15-ton Lacrosse-class radar-imaging satellites.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Can we move on???

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Who made you the boss of this thread?

You, apparently, thanks. But I just like playing by the rules - the T & C states:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you

Any questions - is that unclear to you in any way?

As for me, I have the courage of my convictions, so I don't let 'someone else's' videos speak for me.

Courage of convictions? ... Inserting the word "individual", dude, it's called a strawman! Yes, you really need new glasses, CHRLZ!

Just because I referred to the "astronaut footprints" and you refer to the same thing as a "worn paths" does it mean we can't be friends?

SayonaraJupiter on page 335: "Here is LRO showing Apollo 11 - Wow, look at the astronaut footprints!"

CHRLZ on page 335: "You can see individual footprints on this: ..can you, SJ? Guess I need new glasses - could you help me out and put in an arrow to one? I can only see worn paths where they have clearly gone back and forth..."

Courtesy link: www.abovetopsecret.com... .
Courtesy reference picture of an LRO made image of the Apollo 11 landing site in which we can see either "astronaut footprints" or a "worn paths" ...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42843072dfe1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by backinblack

A KH-12 is a $1 billion satellite that resembles the Hubble Space Telescope, except it is looking at our planet. For security reasons, there are no published orbit schedules for the imagery spacecraft. They are supplemented by the 15-ton Lacrosse-class radar-imaging satellites.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Can we move on???

edit on 30-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

You say can we move on YET at every post you link to these satellites so lets see KH-12 almost twice the hubble weight 19600 kg v 11100kg resolution 6 inches so 15cm (not your 2.5 or 7cm )and you compare it to LRO, at a fraction of the cost about a tenth of the weight BUT your KH12 is NOT 10X BETTER JUST OVER 3x now do you want to move on.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Hi nataylor

i will stick up for blackinblack here I did find a reference to both 7cm and 2.5cm images but it was basically a missle with a telescope in it ,flew in an arc got to about 92 miles up ,example picture below from the kh-7 did about 150 missions SO no longer used.



Now is that really much more detail than the LRO pics you can see its a mast you can see buildings ....

edit on 30-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

A KH-12 is a $1 billion satellite that resembles the Hubble Space Telescope, except it is looking at our planet. For security reasons, there are no published orbit schedules for the imagery spacecraft. They are supplemented by the 15-ton Lacrosse-class radar-imaging satellites.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Can we move on???

I think this is the point, if the US, who claims to have landed men on the moon, collected soils from various sites on the moon, and sent many probes to map the moon, would want to send a new probe to take photos of the moon 40 years later, you would think they would send a probe that could map the moon SIGNIFICANTLY better than what they could do 40-50 years ago.

Otherwise, why waste our tax $$$ ? Why waste our time?

Why couldnt the probe orbit closer to the moon for more detailed photos and or videos?
Why hasnt NASA sent a probe that could operate on the moon like they have for mars?

All this does is fan the flames of conspiracy advocates either on the "they are hiding aliens" and/or "they are hiding the faked moon missions" side.

Originally posted by backinblack

Can we move on???

I would like to move on to the following.


Please review the following films:





and give your honest opinion on the difference between the displacement of soil.
Is one worse than the other?
Does one landing cause more disturbance of soil than an other?
Etc.

Around 1:10 of the first video (apollo 11)
you see near the bottom of the screen in the first video a small white object go across the screen.
It appears to be rock or something, moving in slow motion.

In this video

we see how NASA believes future missions (Constellation) will land on the moon.
Very similar to Apollo. But in the animation, not much soil has been displaced and there
is no crater made from the four engine nozzles.
(Also notice the lack of stars in the video- maybe because they used photos from Apollo, lol)
We also know from the Apollo missions nary a crater was made.

Ijust cannot believe TPTB have been able to keep the fake moon landings hidden from the majority of the world for so long, or have they? What percentage of the informed populace agrees with the sceptics? Well if we were to use just this thread as an example we would have a majority of people being sceptics. The believers are fewer yet more determined to keep coming back again and again to keep up the fight, what does this say for these
determined few who believe anything NASA says even when they perform a 180, make repeated retractions, doctor photos and fake missions? Some of these people are extremely intelligent individuals, unfortunately the greatest minds often lack some very important ingredients toward the simplicities of life, common sense and a reasonable amount of discernment. This debate is not going to cease any time soon but you believers have to ask yourselves some questions at least, do you think NASA has ever blatantly lied to the public? Furthermore if they lied to us tommorrow would you even care?

Originally posted by FoosM
Why hasnt NASA sent a probe that could operate on the moon like they have for mars?

This is a very good question.

It could do invaluable research and help solve so many of the discrepancies we see appearing in moon research today.

It could report comprehensively on the radioactive environment of the moon.
It could take pictures of the stars from an atmosphere free environment.
It could conduct a multitude of experiments that were unthinkable 40 years ago.
It could signal earth in a manner that anyone looking up at a certain time would see.

And had it been launched just a few years ago, it could have provided the ultimate 40 year anniversary shot of the first moon landing remnants.

Or most likely it would just show an empty, barren terrain devoid of any evidence that we've have ever stepped foot there.

reply to post by ppk55


Lets see they dont have to be on the surface to measure radiation.
They get good enough star pictures from hubble you wont get better from a small scope on the Moon.
They got proof of the landings LRO pics, objects at all landing sites as documented even evidence of Astronauts movements.

Oh by the way have you worked out how to use a camera yet?

Originally posted by ppk55
This is a very good question.

Only to someone who hasn't thought it through...

Pssssst, ppk, do you think it's safe to return? Long enough has elapsed that everyone has forgotten that YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU???

It's getting to be a nasty habit. You should SEE the entire list of questions you have avoided.. I'll post the last ones below (and ALL of them soon).. but first.. I'LL ANSWER YOURS. Someone has to take the high road and set the example.

It could do invaluable research and help solve so many of the discrepancies we see appearing in moon research today.

You haven't named anything, nor why you think it would be important. But in fact lots of research, including various probes like LRO - are uncovering new information all the time. Anyway, you dispute NASA information all the time, so why would you make such a hypocritical request? So you can have more stuff to ignorantly dispute?

And why the obsession with the Moon? It's a relatively boring and dead planetoid, compared to what is out a bit further. Are you not interested in the search for life? It's very unlikely to be found on the Moon. What else do you think would be valuable to us, up there? Surely what follows isn't it..?

It could report comprehensively on the radioactive environment of the moon.

They already have a very good idea of the radiation levels in cislunar space and the small amount that 'bounces' up from the surface. Apollo did that and it has been refined in many ways since. Why would it be important to further refine those figures, by how much could they be refined, or what new radiation do we know about now that needs investigation? Really, you should provide that sort of information when you make the claim, otherwise you reveal that you don't understand what you are asking.

It could take pictures of the stars from an atmosphere free environment.

You mean like ... Hubble? Yeah, great idea, lets take an eleven tonne telescope up to the moon, where it would require another full lunar mission every time it got serviced, and also be subject to lunar day and night without the possibility of maneuvring/rotating itself. Briiliant thinking. Have NASA rung you about that advisory position? It's only a mater of time....

It could conduct a multitude of experiments that were unthinkable 40 years ago.

None of which you care to name, or justify? Really, you should provide that sort of information, or....

It could signal earth in a manner that anyone looking up at a certain time would see.

Omigod that is *just* what we need - via text messages maybe?!!!! I'm amazed this hasn't been brought up before - I mean hands up everyone who wants this!!! Can I suggest the messages?
"Aliens are coming - look BEHIND YOU!! Nah only jokin'"
"No Parking"
"You have exceeded the Galactic Speed Limit. Pull Over."
"At the appearance of the UFO, it will be 3:33 and thirty three seconds"
"No signal. Emergency Calls Only."
"It's way cool up here."
"EEEEeeeWWW! There's something green and slimy crawling over my footpad!"

And had it been launched just a few years ago, it could have provided the ultimate 40 year anniversary shot of the first moon landing remnants.

But we already have shots of all of that, minus the effect of the years.

What a waste of taxpayers money. Anyone else prepared to lobby government for this? I'd rather donate to JW's fund...

Anyways, here's those questions again, ppk. Remember, you were saying how it was a serious omission that they didn't take any star images from the Moon, and that they would be so much clearer and better than what we could do from terra firma. And I said:

BE SPECIFIC. Please answer EACH ONE of these questions, in DETAIL. I've numbered them for you - don't forget any - there's only five... Now, if you don't know the topic well enough, I suggest you say so now, rather than be very embarrassed later. But it's up to you... Oh, and I've even kindly included a few hints..

1. How exactly would these images, taken from the sunlit side of the Moon, be 'astounding'?

2. What sort of equipment would you suggest they use, and how?

3. Just how many f-stops advantage would there be? (Or if you prefer, what would be the limiting magnitude advantage?)

4. What effect would using a different speed film (from those available at the time) have on all this, or would you suggest an electronic sensor? How much dynamic range did the films/sensors of that era have, and why is that relevant?

5. How would these 'astounding pictures' compare to those from say the Palomar 48", or perhaps the Cerro Tololo or Kitt Peak 158" scopes?


Take your time. I won't forget. And the answers lead to a conclusion. Point by point, I'm happy to go through it all with you, or anyone else who genuinely wishes to understand.

Trouble for you is, no-one else with a modicum of knowledge of optics and basic science, seems to not get it..

lestweforget, it is rather noticable that your strident handwaving contains not a single actual example.

May I take a wild guess that the reason you do that, is of course that you know that any example you post will be hotly (and rightly) disputed.

Sadly, ATS doesn't enforce the principle of making people back up their claims, but nevertheless, I am asking you to back up the claim that:

Originally posted by lestweforget
[NASA] perform a 180, make repeated retractions, doctor photos and fake missions..

Please post actual documented examples of all of these so they can be discussed and/or disputed with regard to the Apollo missions.

If you do not, and are therefore unwilling to debate whether these supposed issues are either true, or in any way relevant to the Apollo missions, then it is quite clear that you do NOT stand behind your words, and simply make unsupported claims to further your agenda - in other words, you are exactly what you are complaining about - UNLESS you now stand behind those claims and document them.

Originally posted by lestweforget
I just cannot believe TPTB have been able to keep the fake moon landings hidden from the majority of the world for so long, or have they?

Great point lestweforget,

If they were able to keep it secret from just about everyone working on the Apollo program I don't think keeping it secret from the public would be much harder.

Around 1960 the Discoverer satellites were launched.
(to be known as the 'Corona' spy satellites)

Everyone working on them was told they were for peaceful purposes.
This was not the case.
At the last moment the cargo of mice and various peaceful experiments were replaced with high resolution imaging equipment. ie. Basically It became a spy satellite.

This was not known to the thousands and thousands of workers that put them together. When the public were told the canisters returning to earth contained mice, they in fact contained the film of the spy cameras.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19c81b61456c.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c5f92220c2e6.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/893213208058.png[/atsimg]

source: The Age, June 5, 1959.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55

 

Lets see they dont have to be on the surface to measure radiation.
They get good enough star pictures from hubble you wont get better from a small scope on the Moon.
They got proof of the landings LRO pics, objects at all landing sites as documented even evidence of Astronauts movements.

Getting photos from the moon has nothing to do with having them being better than Hubble.
Its about how the sky looks from various locations on the moon. In other words, reference points. The same way we have navigated by the stars, can be very useful for future missions.
When you visit a new location like a planet, it's sky is as important to study as it's ground.
Or dont you get that yet?

The LRO pictures are not proof, not in this digital age.
Astronaut footprints were already made and well documented back during Apollo.
In other words, nothing new was presented with LRO.
Or dont you get that yet?

And we all have worked with cameras and seen people work with cameras
here on Earth. Thats why many people have a hard time believing
that stars could not have been photographed and commented on during Apollo.
And now that we have thoroughly established that equipment was there for them to
do so makes that fact even more glaring.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by lestweforget
I just cannot believe TPTB have been able to keep the fake moon landings hidden from the majority of the world for so long, or have they?

Great point lestweforget,

If they were able to keep it secret from just about everyone working on the Apollo program I don't think keeping it secret from the public would be much harder.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19c81b61456c.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c5f92220c2e6.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/893213208058.png[/atsimg]

Wait-a-cotton-pickin' minute PPK,
Are you telling me that the whole world couldnt find a satellite that was in LEO?
And when I say low I mean LOW!

So so its possible to have manned objects orbit the Earth and people not see it?
So so you can spy on people??
Well I'll be...

reply to post by ppk55


Lets see it was a CIA project and camera systems were designed for it and companies like Kodak and General Electric did work on it.

Now as it was to replace U2 spy planes I dont think they would want lots of people to know about it.

I would think anyone on the project would have known what it was for.

Also after a U2 had been shot down do you really think they would say what it was.

Anyway ppk55 learned anything about photography yet!!!!!

reply to post by FoosM


Yes we would navigate using the stars when on the moons surface!
Yes and Astronauts paths visible on the DAC film and match shape on LRO image I bet that really ----ed JW off like it does YOU.

We have explained time and time again why the stars wouldn't couldn't show on pictures although it does seem to difficult for you to understand.

You have plenty of links re photography BUT you are obviously out of your depth when we talk about exposure etc.