Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

DJ made a recent post attempting to explain the obvious anomalies that I had pointed out in 4 posts. The problem that we have is that DJ really didnt address any of the issues.
He created a straw man.

And this is how he tried to do it:
First he wanted to create the impression that I wasnt sure what I thought the problem was with the photo sequence:

You still haven't explained what your issue with these photos actually is.

Now any intellectually honest person following the last three pages would be able to easily identify the anomalies I brought up.

Now after his attempt to muddy the issue, he presented what he believed the problem to be:

Is it a question of timing? That seemed to be your original problem.

Of course, by making this statement he as already contradicted his first statement of:

You still haven't explained what your issue with these photos actually is.

But DJ, didnt you say that my original problem is a question of timing?

Do you see readers how this intellectually dishonest this is?

Now DJ is prepared to offer a rebuttal to the problem he created
He goes at length to basically prove that the astronauts could take three photos in four seconds.
Easy peasy.

Next, his comrades, and those who defend the Apollo history with prejudice, flock to his side offer stars and praise without question or analysis of his post and claim victory. They will say they have put the issue at rest and that all Apollo anomalies have been answered. By doing so, they will all be committing intellectual dishonesty.

Now to explain the disappearing LRV Sampler (a real issue I brought up), DJ will use quite a bit of fantasy to explain away this magic trick.

It is rather odd that he mentioned it, don't you think? It's almost as though the two astronauts were playing some sort of game. This might explain why Jack was doing his little juggling trick, to see if Gene could catch the rake in mid-air, er, vacuum. Why else would Jack ask if Gene were ready?

This obviously makes no sense whatever.
Wasn't Gene asking Jack if he was ready to jump?
Remember:

Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat.

Now DJ wants us to believe Jack was already in his seat and wanted to juggle the LRV Sampler?
Or was he juggling prior to jumping into the seat? I dont suppose he wants us to believe he was juggling WHILE he was landing in this seat did he

I have to come to the conclusion that people who staunchly believe in the moon landing do so from an over-active imagination and not because of the science behind it.

Notice the position of his hands. In the first photo, his right hand is starting to angle towards his left. In the second photo, it has rotated further to catch the rake, while his left hand is raised, as though he has just tossed something to his right. In the final photograph, his right hand is palm down, as though he has just dropped something. Any questions?

Did you ask that with a straight face DJ? Or are you pulling our legs?

You will notice that DJ will keep your attention to the right hand.
He doesn't explain how the astronaut was able to pull out the LRV Sampler so quickly with the other hand.

In the first photo his hand is angling toward the left?
Based on what?

In the second photo it angled more to catch the Sampler?
So?

Then finally DJ states that the sampler is dropped in the last photo based on the angle of the hand. He doesnt state why, how or even where?

And all this supposedly occurs during a one to one and a half second jump!?

DJs story just has too many holes.
For example, at any point did anybody remark about dropping the sampler or having to pick it up?

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)

168:47:16 Parker: 17, Houston. Do you read me through the LM?

168:47:20 Schmitt: You're loud and clear.

168:47:22 Parker: Roger. Thank you.

168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.

168:47:32 Schmitt: Okay. I hope it (the seatbelt)'s untwisted this time, so I can get off.

168:47:38 Cernan: Oh, let's see. If old "twinkletoes" (Gene, himself) can do it. Jack, there's a big one (a rock) right there, in my floor pan. (Pause) That's what I did last time.

[Cernan - "I did whatever I'd done the last time (at Station 8 when he fell as he tried to mount the Rover) - got my foot caught on something, or whatever."]
168:47:53 Schmitt: Okay. I'm on, strangely enough. (Pause) Okay. (Pause)
168:48:05 Cernan: Let's see. Okay. The charge is off to the right. (Pause)

[Because of the four-wheel steering, Gene will turn toward the charge to get around it. If he turned left, the back wheels of the Rover would turn toward the charge - although, in this case, the separation is substantial.]
168:48:23 Schmitt: Yeah, you're all right. You can clear it this way or...
168:48:31 Cernan: Yeah. I see it.

168:48:33 Schmitt: Okay. (Pause, thinking back to Houston's mistaken impression that the out-of focus flag was a background object) I bet you they thought there was some more orange soil over there on the hills. (Pause)

168:48:51 Cernan: Get out of this block field, we'll be able to move it (that is, speed up) a little bit.
168:48:56 Schmitt: I wonder where we stand on time.

168:49:00 Cernan: (Looking at his watch) Well, we've been out about 5 hours and 20 minutes or so.

168:49:05 Schmitt: Where are we headed, now that we are moving?

168:49:08 Parker: That's affirm...

168:49:09 Cernan: Well, I'm trying to get out of the block field here, then I'll head back to the southwest. (Pause)

[Cuff checklist page LMP/CDR-24 shows the planned traverse to Station 10. For completeness, pages LMP/CDR-25, LMP/CDR-26, LMP/CDR-27, LMP/CDR-28, and CDR-29 cover the planned drive to Station 10, the planned activities at that station, and the drive back to the LM.]
168:49:21 Schmitt: We going to Sherlock (Station 10) at all, Bob?
168:49:26 Parker: No, we're going straight home...

168:49:27 Schmitt: (To Gene) That must be Gatsby (Crater) over there.

[AS17-143-21860 to 21863 cover the next portion of the traverse.]
168:49:27 Parker: ...you can follow the (garbled, but means the Nav system) home. (Pause) And a reminder, Jack. We can get lots of photos. We've got lots of film left right now.
168:49:43 Schmitt: Okay.

168:49:46 Parker: And, 17. Gene, I guess you're the one that took the SEP out. Do you remember the reading of the SEP temperature when you broke it down?

168:49:57 Cernan: Didn't even look, Bob.

168:49:59 Parker: Okay. Copy that.

168:50:00 Schmitt: It was 125 when we started the station.

I sure didnt notice it.
So where did you dream it up DJ?





www.hq.nasa.gov...

DJ made a recent post attempting to explain the obvious anomalies that I had pointed out in 4 posts. The problem that we have is that DJ really didnt address any of the issues.
He created a straw man.

Really? Here's your original post:

The U.S. Geological Survey Photographic Library

describes the following photo as follows:

Jack Schmitt jumping into LRV at station 9

Lunar Surface Journal describes it as:

The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat.

[Edit for brevity --DJW]

A photo that conspiracy theorist claim to see a coke bottle, or claim that there are missing LRV tracks. We are not going to discuss those aspects of the photo in this series. No, not at all.

So we have an astronaut jumping into the LMP rover.
Lets take a look at some examples of astronauts jumping:

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

Showing off:

How long did those big jumps take?
About two seconds?
Smaller jumps about one?

Here we can see an astronaut jumping into a rover:

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

How long did that take? Less then a second?

Now anybody here know how fast the magazine could advance the film?
Would approximately ONE second sound about accurate?

Which means for any action that takes a second, you could only be able to capture it once.
Correct?

Now what did we read from NASA:

Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.

The first question:
How was that possible?
Three photos for a 1 second event?

Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."

unplanned or unexplained?

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Between "Ready" and "I got three of them"

there are only 4 seconds.
The photos only show the landing sequence of the event.
Not the take-off.
So thats 3 photos for just the landing in the seat portion.

168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)

Yeah, me too!

168:47:16 Parker: 17, Houston. Do you read me through the LM?
168:47:20 Schmitt: You're loud and clear.
168:47:22 Parker: Roger. Thank you.
168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.
Oh you know they will!

So what exactly are you asking here? How long does it take to get into the LRV? How long did the sequence take? Is something that is unplanned somehow unexplainable? You must admit that your point is a muddle, but I answered all your questions in my reply. (Incidentally, one thing that is so confusing is that you seem to think all of these photos were taken with the astronaut in mid-jump. In fact, they all seem to take place after he has landed, as your own rhetorical questions suggest.

You then went on to post:

We have established that supposedly 3 photos were taken within a 4 second time span.

Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.

[Edit --DJW001]

Lets take a closer look at these photos.

in 20453
Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand


What is a LRV sampler?

Jack is examining his LRV Sampler

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Note the tempa-label on the handle of the LRV sampler just below Jack's left palm.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Jack Schmitt (left) collects a sample with the LRV sampler during training at the Cape. He is leaning slightly to his right and has a grip on the accessory staff with his left hand for stability. He probably has turned his head inside the helmet so he can see what he is getting although, as he notes in a 2000 e-mail message: "The sampler was mainly just for collecting representative samples of regolith fines along the traverse route, so seeing what you grabbed was not critical most of the time."

www.hq.nasa.gov...


So lets get back to
next.nasa.gov...

Just like in the examples, we see it, The Sampler, in Jack's right hand as he is LANDING in his seat.
However, it doesnt start in in right hand.

No, not according to
history.nasa.gov...

It starts in his left, then its transferred to his right, and by the time of the last photo, it has disappeared.
apolloanomalies.com...

Question: How did Jack managed to pull out, change hands and hide the LRV sampler while he jumped into his seat in ONE second?

Again, your point is unclear because you do not present all the photos in a chronological fashion, but keep linking to sources that make your line of reasoning unclear. You also collapse the time frame, which you claim as already established. Despite the confusion you have tried to create, I believe I answered all your questions in this post.

Now may we please return to the question of Jarrah's lie aout the Gemini X photo?

A while back in this thread I mentioned the fact that LRO photographed the landing sites for Apollo 11, 14, 15, 16 & 17 in July of 2009. The landing site for Apollo 12 was photographed a couple weeks later and publicly released in September of 2009.

My post from Page 157

How would a conspiracy believer account for this discrepancy? If one were to simply chalk it up to just another part of the larger conspiracy, it would require implicating Nasa for either faking the photos of the landing sites or landing on the moon later to recreate each individual site.

If the landing sites were somehow faked and digitally recreated for public release I would think someone would've challenged the authenticity of the photos by now.

Also, at least some of the scientific experiments set up back then are still working and are exactly where they should be.

-ChriS

Originally posted by Smack
I think it is time to post this video again...

Thanks for that link, Smack - it bears repeating, and if he's reading this, may I applaud the work of GoneToPlaid, who hangs out at some other forums I read, and who is, quite simply a genius with his image analysis. yes, he's even better than me...

Seriously, if you haven't taken a look at this LRO imagery (+ deconvolution to reveal even more detail), take a look NOW.

The music's pretty dam cool too...

reply to post by CHRLZ


Yes great video but you do know what Foosm and his mates will say before they say it,lets start a fund to send him there and I dont mind if we dont raise enough for a return trip!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Yes great video but you do know what Foosm and his mates will say before they say it,lets start a fund to send him there and I dont mind if we dont raise enough for a return trip!!

Nah, people will say exactly the same as they did the last time this video was shown..
And that's the pure truth..
It is HIGHLY enhanced and would in NO WAY be accepted by skeptics if it was in any other forum..
There would be SCREAMS of video tampering...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Yes great video but you do know what Foosm and his mates will say before they say it,lets start a fund to send him there and I dont mind if we dont raise enough for a return trip!!

Given the number of countries who now have the ability and intent to send further probes, there is simply no point to NASA faking the LRO images.

WARNING - very poor attempt at humour follows. Do NOT laugh.

But.. great news!!! I understand JW has now gathered together the huge sum of $325!!! Woohoo!! - he's well on the way. Even tho' $50 is his own money (no lie - check his YT channel to verify all that)... and his Mum said he has to give the rest back after he's finished playing this game... (ok, that last bit is not verifiable.. but it's just like all of foo's stuff..).

Hey, foo and ppk, how much of that money is yours? Didja get a money back promise? What's the limiting date?

This all reminds me of chemtrails and the missing $6000.. Is Jarrah the new Carnicom?

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Yes great video but you do know what Foosm and his mates will say before they say it,lets start a fund to send him there and I dont mind if we dont raise enough for a return trip!!

Nah, people will say exactly the same as they did the last time this video was shown..
And that's the pure truth..
It is HIGHLY enhanced and would in NO WAY be accepted by skeptics if it was in any other forum..
There would be SCREAMS of video tampering...

Only teeny difference bein' that the ORIGINAL IMAGES (NOT video) are all publicly available, as is the raw spacecraft data. That means that what GTP has done can be crosschecked by anyone with the expertise and understanding of deconvolution (which, by the way, has only added a very tiny amount of detail) - the original images are quite sufficient to verify the original Apollo traverse maps and ALL of the video and photographic record of the Apollo missions and the extraordinary detail of the journals.

If bib (with his already proven ability to research..) wants to dispute that, I'll patiently await an image or video clip, with all the supporting calculations, that doesn't line up *perfectly* with both the traverse map or the LRO images. But all we'll get now is more foo-isms, where he plucks any image out of any orifice, throws (vomits) them onto this forum, and proves he doesn't want to engage with any reasonable debate or analysis.

I think DJW's example above is a perfect one - his analysis is as good as it gets, yet has been completely dismissed by foos, who simply claims it doesn't add up, yet won't touch the numbers and evidence provided, or even admit he wasn't aware of things like video frame rates. An indefensible lack of knowledge of the topic - but at least he is consistent - he applies that same level to all his work..

That's what deniers do. They simply move from ignorance to delusion to ignorance to denial. And if things don't work out, jump to the next image..

It's a waste of time trying to get foo to listen (though I applaud DJ's never ending patience). Personally I think it's time that foo got the attention he deserves (ie NONE) unless someone ELSE comes to his aid and actually addresses all the issues that foo ignores. Someone who can actually find a real anomaly, instead of the mindless repeating garbage on this thread.

Problem is, that people with the required expertise do not see any anomalies - because there are none. Even those who initially think there might be something to the deniers claims, if they are capable of listening and applying a little logic, soon see that the 'issues' being raised here are simply a product of ignorance.

There have been several of those folk on this thread, and I applaud them too - perhaps that makes the effort worthwhile.

But there will always be a few Blossom Goodchilds, Steven Greers, Nancy Lieders, Ralph Renes, Bill Kaysings, Jaime Maussans.. and their gullible followers...

reply to post by CHRLZ

That's what deniers do. They simply move from ignorance to delusion to ignorance to denial. And if things don't work out, jump to the next image..

Great work debating the issues instead of the posters..
I wonder how many breaches of T&C are in that one post of yours..
But that seems fine and accepted debate from your side, heck you'll probably get stars for that..

That video was heavily enhanced..
The LRO images were at best 50cm/pixel..
If I remember right the video is quoted at 6"/pixel..
Quite the difference..

A difference you would never accept in say a UFO thread...Agreed??

reply to post by CHRLZ

I think DJW's example above is a perfect one - his analysis is as good as it gets, yet has been completely dismissed by foos, who simply claims it doesn't add up, yet won't touch the numbers and evidence provided, or even admit he wasn't aware of things like video frame rates. An indefensible lack of knowledge of the topic - but at least he is consistent - he applies that same level to all his work..

DJW's post was fine but Foosm had continually asked where the wand disappeared to but that bit was at first ignored and then later answered very vaguely IMO...

Though I don't understand you talking about video frame rates..
They were pics from a camera, not video..

Foos' post regarding the anomalous photo sequence of Schmit jumping into the LRV really needs to be researched further. I'll be looking into this shortly. Great find.

Original post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

However perhaps what everyone is overlooking here is the preposterous notion that an astronaut would attempt to 'jump' into/onto anything in a vacuum.

The very idea that these guys jumped, hopped, fell over, bounced up, played golf, did burn outs in the LRV, threw objects with reckless abandon etc. is beyond belief.

It is inconceivable that they would attempt any type of unnecessary risk in relation to how they moved about on the moon. Why would they risk 'jumping' into the LRV, potentially breaking their suit apart, when they didn't need to. This is a very important question.

Below is a video of the outlandish and high improbable risks they took on the moon. Every one of them potentially risking a rupture to their suit, resulting in an instant and deadly depressurization of their suit.

To put it simply, one rupture and their blood would boil.

Yet look at this ..



And now if you want to see how astronauts actually behave in a vacuum, please check out the many ISS repair missions. They are tediously boring, however when the operation is being played out for real, as it is these days, safety is paramount and all undue risks are avoided like the plague.

reply to post by ppk55


Well on the moon they still had gravity but in the ISS they are weightless..
That would certainly slow their movements..

But that video you posted was interesting..
Watch the last few seconds..
He's upright but on his knees and then simply stands back up with both legs together..
I know the gravity is less but they also had the weight of their suits and packs..

Try that yourself..It's impossible..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by ppk55

 

Well on the moon they still had gravity but in the ISS they are weightless..
That would certainly slow their movements..

But that video you posted was interesting..
Watch the last few seconds..
He's upright but on his knees and then simply stands back up with both legs together..

I know the gravity is less but they also had the weight of their suits and packs..

Try that yourself..It's impossible..

Ermm... i actually just tried. I can do it.

reply to post by debunky

Ermm... i actually just tried. I can do it.

Really?? Both knees on the ground with your feet behind you??

Love to know what muscles you used because it really is impossible unless you pull one leg forward..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky

 

Ermm... i actually just tried. I can do it.

Really?? Both knees on the ground with your feet behind you??

Love to know what muscles you used because it really is impossible unless you pull one leg forward..

Yes.
At first I thought I would need to push myself up with my arms, like the astronaut did, but just tried it with my hands crossed behind my back.
Works too.

You do need a little bit of backwards momentum, and if you look at the video you can see that he does have that. His next step after standing up is backwards.(And he got it from pushing himself up with his hands)

reply to post by debunky

Yes.
At first I thought I would need to push myself up with my arms, like the astronaut did, but just tried it with my hands crossed behind my back.
Works too.

You do need a little bit of backwards momentum, and if you look at the video you can see that he does have that. His next step after standing up is backwards.(And he got it from pushing himself up with his hands)

Look a little closer..
At 0:14 he actually comes DOWNWARDS onto his knees..
His hands do NOT touch the ground and yet he stands up..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky

 

Yes.
At first I thought I would need to push myself up with my arms, like the astronaut did, but just tried it with my hands crossed behind my back.
Works too.

You do need a little bit of backwards momentum, and if you look at the video you can see that he does have that. His next step after standing up is backwards.(And he got it from pushing himself up with his hands)

Look a little closer..
At 0:14 he actually comes DOWNWARDS onto his knees..
His hands do NOT touch the ground and yet he stands up..

*facepalm*
They do behind the red chair.
He falls down, pushes himself up, comes to his knees, and stands up again.

Here: the whole sequence without the chair:

reply to post by debunky


You do wonder why they played around like that in such dangerous conditions..
I mean one knee into a jagged rock would rupture their suit in the vacuum of space..
Not a pretty thought..here's a new thread on just that..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by debunky

 

You do wonder why they played around like that in such dangerous conditions..
I mean one knee into a jagged rock would rupture their suit in the vacuum of space..
Not a pretty thought..here's a new thread on just that..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, now that you are changing the subject, I can assume that you are assured of the possibility of the movements performed by the astronaut?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental

 

I am enjoying you trying desperately to discredit an honest individual who has strong beliefs and is willing to go to great lengths, both personal and financial, to defend those beliefs in the face of extreme vitriol based on what I can only think is some sort of warped jealousy.

Why would you enjoy watching an honest individual be discredited? Talk about warped....

Hiya DJ... well done.. you just proved you can't read properly.

I said (above) 'i am enjoying 'watching' you TRYING to discredit'...

As in I am enjoying your efforts.

Time to go back to reading class.

If you watched Jarrah's videos (which you obviously haven't if you've never seen him correct his errors) or read posts properly we might not have so many differing opinions.