Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Looks like it does in the pictures and shadows back that up.

Odd, a few pages ago you were demanding exact angles for a picture reflection..

Now, "looks like it does' is good enough ???

I agree, sometimes we have to make rough calls but odd how you pic when..

reply to post by weedwhacker

THEN...give evidence that something like that could "snag" or "tear open" a typical Apollo EVA suit.

I've snagged clothes on less obvious protrusions and the EVA suits appear to have creases and are pressurized which wouldn't help..

Does it prove a hoax? No way but IMO it is poorly designed...

Originally posted by backinblack
I've snagged clothes on less obvious protrusions and the EVA suits appear to have creases and are pressurized which wouldn't help..

Snagged, but not torn? Were these clothes of yours somewhat loose? Was the thickness and stiffness of your clothes comparable to the EVA suits?

How Space Suits Work
The Apollo suit consisted of the following:

* A water-cooled nylon undergarment
* A multi-layered pressure suit
o inside layer - lightweight nylon with fabric vents
o middle layer - neoprene-coated nylon to hold pressure
o outer layer - nylon to restrain the pressurized layers beneath
* Five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dacron for heat protection
* Two layers of Kapton for additional heat protection
* A layer of Teflon-coated cloth (nonflammable) for protection from scrapes
* A layer of white Teflon cloth (nonflammable)

And here's another photo showing the teflon clips. AS17-146-22296

IMO they do not appear to pose much of a problem to the Astronaut getting in and out of the LRV.

reply to post by jra

Snagged, but not torn? Were these clothes of yours somewhat loose? Was the thickness and stiffness of your clothes comparable to the EVA suits?

Did I say torn jra ??
I haven't touched the material to get an idea of strength..

I was merely expressing my opinion that yes, I think it was a bad idea to have those clips there and they could snag their suit...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Looks like it does in the pictures and shadows back that up.

Odd, a few pages ago you were demanding exact angles for a picture reflection..

Now, "looks like it does' is good enough ???

I agree, sometimes we have to make rough calls but odd how you pic when..

Well the ground slopes or it doesn't ,if we look at the astronaut on the left in the first picture his shadow looks short a sign the ground is sloping up the way in front of him and the rocks give it a weird shape (another example of that below) and on the other photograph the astronaut on the right his shadow looks long a sign the ground is sloping down.

The fact that the gnomon on the second pictures looks smaller is because its further away.

I asked Foosm about the camera angle on the pictures in the previous posts because he claimed he knew something about it, now if we do that he wants all the details, you dont need a lot of details to see if the ground is sloping.

Also we know already know sloping ground confuses Foosm for example


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6d8e2cf0b51.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by wmd_2008

I actually said I agreed..

It's good to see you realize sometimes we can't get accurate details and must make educated guesses..

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
You did not come up with answers to my questions

Why post falsehoods like this? I wrote paragraphs in response to your questions, addressing them specifically. here is a link to my post. Anyone who can read can see you are not being honest.

Why dont you specifically highlight or quote your answers to my question?
Instead of bringing back the problem which is a post that reads like a rant.
Im not interested to read what you think about me or people who dont believe in the moon-landings, just answer the questions.

Originally posted by FoosM
Why dont you specifically highlight or quote your answers to my question?
Instead of bringing back the problem which is a post that reads like a rant.
Im not interested to read what you think about me or people who dont believe in the moon-landings, just answer the questions.

I don't think it will come as any surprise to participants of this thread that you are unable to accept or even to comprehend criticism.

In fact given that you want me to quote my answers out of a huge total of 10 whole posts in this thread, suggests you're incapable of even reading criticism. The points I have made are legitimate, and supported by a lot of experience in matters such as these. You may not believe it, but some of what you say is worryingly borderline.

In order to try and foster some sense of cooperation and mutual discussion, I will quote your questions and my answers to them explicitly. Once I have done that though I will list the questions that I have asked and I feel were insufficiently answered. I will then expect the same level of courtesy from you.

(Answers in bold)

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did the Sampler go?

He could have dropped the sampler, he could have placed it somewhere out of frame etc.
A more coherent and specific theory was then proposed noting that the tether clip changed states inbetween photos. I would prefer that over my speculation at least.

Originally posted by FoosM
Spend huge amounts of money on what exactly?
What do you find so expensive about the photos?

I didn't answer this one specifically, so I will here: They're faking a moon mission, just preparing the set would have taken months of research and modelling. Hell imagine having to do a rover re-take, you've now got to somehow carefully scrub the sand for only those footprints made inbetween the photos you want to replace. It would be an immense undertaking.

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever thought that maybe that was the point?

Do you really think they would make such ridiculously subtle changes? Changes that in my entire posting lifetime here I have only ever seen mention of from you? You don't think that perhaps they would have done something a little bit more obvious?

Originally posted by FoosM
When were all these photos released to the public?

The photos have been released in various quantities and qualities over many years.

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know how many people quit NASA right before Apollo 11 and right after the Apollo program? I made a post about it earlier in this thread.

I did not answer this one either as I assume it is rhetorical.

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you seen all this evidence, has this evidence been put under independent scrutiny?

The evidence you discuss has been put under independent scrutiny. Many countries have flown moon missions, manned or unmanned, and space based collaboration has been occurring for many years. Every stage of the NASA missions was observed as much as possible by professionals and amateurs all over the world. This is why there are radio tracks of the capsules on their way to the moon, because people with simple equipment wanted to be involved.

Originally posted by FoosM
And what is this off-world evidence that you think cannot be recreated on Earth?

As for evidence that cannot be recreated on earth, the descent and landing footage shows radial dust ejecta, a phenomena which can only be recreated in a vacuum. Not to mention of course that earth's weather correlates perfectly, that large quantities of samples were returned, that the tracks of the men and rovers are visible from orbit. I could go on listing for some time, I don't doubt you will put your fingers in your ears, but I wish to illustrate to whoever is reading the sheer scale of evidence in favour of manned missions.

Originally posted by FoosM
For me, the photo and video evidence is dead.
So what is left?

What I find most interesting though is that you now believe you can dismiss any photo or video evidence, massively biasing any decision you make away from legitimate manned missions. What's the rationale you have behind this? You don't trust NASA. Not really very convincing is it?

Originally posted by FoosM
Why would they spend all that money on film for it to get fogged by space radiation NEAR the van allen belt?

I have no idea why you would think that film but not humans being damaged by radiation would mean humans could not survive the radiation. How does that logic work exactly? Humans not in danger, so humans in danger?

So out of 9 questions, I answered 6 directly, 1 indirectly. One was rhetorical, and the other I have answered for you here.

Do we really have to play such a silly game where I have to go back a whole few pages and quote stuff that you can read directly? You asked me 9 questions, here are 8 answers. Here are my unanswered / insufficiently answered questions for you:

1. Why on earth would NASA spend any time at all faking shots of someone jumping into a rover, when in fact they could just take pictures of them jumping into the rover?
   
2. How is it possible that NASA would fake a sequence of photos, taking more than one take to do it, and forget that the main character was holding a sampler?
   
3. What particularly human property do they have which would render them incapable of realising an extremely obvious fact: If you take more photos in the time than you could have, it would be noticed by people like you?
   
4. What was the point you think NASA were aiming for?
   
5. If we were to believe that someone on the team responsible for faking these pictures wanted to provide evidence they were faked, how would they do it?
   
6. do you think people haven't ever been into space or something? You don't think we have ever even launched unmanned probes to the Moon? Or do you think NASA just forgot to take readings vitally important to their claim of sending men to the moon?
   

There are 6 questions I feel you have not answered to any substantive degree. Please answer them with the same level of detail as I have answered yours.

Originally posted by backinblack
Does it prove a hoax? No way but IMO it is poorly designed...

If you want to go looking for poorly designed Apollo hardware you've got such a treasure trove on your hands you have no idea. Having said that, poor design is not the same as dangerous design, and while clearly there was an awful lot of danger, just having some very small plastic clips which are designed to be at boot level is not really going to be that much of a concern.

You seem to be taking a reasonable attitude in this thread, and I haven't seen you post any ridiculous statements like FoosM. I wonder if you'd be able to list the most convincing evidence of a hoax as you see it. Perhaps we can bring some utility back to the tangled web of spaghetti this thread has become.

reply to post by exponent

I wonder if you'd be able to list the most convincing evidence of a hoax as you see it. Perhaps we can bring some utility back to the tangled web of spaghetti this thread has become.

I haven't seen a real "smoking gun" piece of evidence yet..
More a feeling that something isn't right..

Not going back there...
Incredibly successful manned missions for 60's tech..
Radiation differences found later..
Lack of pics taken of Earth..
The "no crater" bit still hasn't convinced me either way..

Nothing concrete but those have me on the fence..

Originally posted by backinblack
I haven't seen a real "smoking gun" piece of evidence yet..
More a feeling that something isn't right..

There are answers to some of your queries, but I will probably never be able to change your feelings. I can understand why the feeling of suspicion arises too. I trust the US about as far as I can throw you all, and NASA is undoubtedly an agency somewhat connected with the government. That being said, they are primarily civilian, and I generally do not find their actions particularly suspicious.

Not going back there...

I really wish you had, and I really wish you were still planning on. If you are from the US I would urge you to lobby your representative because manned space exploration is something I strongly support.

Incredibly successful manned missions for 60's tech..

Not entirely sure that this is true. Was their success rate really that much higher than now? There are an awful lot of space launches occurring these days, failures are few and far between.

Radiation differences found later..

Not entirely sure what this means too, none of the further research on radiation suggests anything other than what the astronauts experienced. I believe it's something like 40 astronauts now who have cataracts, mostly from the higher exposure missions like Apollo. Do you have a better explanation for this than exposure to elevated radiation environments?

Lack of pics taken of Earth..

But pictures were taken of earth? I think I read earlier that it was a lack of pictures with something from the moon in-frame too? Perhaps it would be worth checking out weather patterns on the days that photos were taken, so you can have some additional evidence that images without moon in-frame could have been taken at the same time.

The "no crater" bit still hasn't convinced me either way..

Yeah i've never really understood this claim myself. The videos of descent show dust being blown away, and they show that it doesn't form clouds like on earth. It's not a huge surprise then that there would be little dust to settle, given that it's just been blown away with a bigass engine.

I'm interested in further discussion on this, because from the points you listed it seems you could be swayed with some more specific analysis of certain points. Many posters here are more experienced than I am, but it would be interesting to see what can be produced.

Originally posted by exponent

I don't think it will come as any surprise to participants of this thread that you are unable to accept or even to comprehend criticism.

I didnt ask for criticism, I asked you to answer some questions.
Did I criticism you when you asked me to answer your question?
No.

But now that I think about it... you have a very defensive attitude.
Are you sure your not the one that cant handle criticisms?

(Answers in bold)

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did the Sampler go?

He could have dropped the sampler, he could have placed it somewhere out of frame etc.
A more coherent and specific theory was then proposed noting that the tether clip changed states inbetween photos. I would prefer that over my speculation at least.

Thats is not a full answer.
Like you admit, you are only speculating, but in truth, you dont have an answer to that problem.

I call that intellectual dishonesty to suggest that what you provided was an answer.
Because once you realized you didnt have an answer to the problem, you could have been honest and said.
"I dont have a good answer to your question"

Because you could have looked deeper into your speculation to come up with:
"Placed it somewhere out of the frame?" Where? How and Why?
"Dropped the Sampler?" Where? Who picked it up? How did it drop? Why wasn't noted in the transcripts?

Originally posted by FoosM
Spend huge amounts of money on what exactly?
What do you find so expensive about the photos?

I didn't answer this one specifically,

Ah.... really? And you wanted me to go through your post again to look for it?

so I will here: They're faking a moon mission, just preparing the set would have taken months of research and modelling.

Let me ask you this. Whats so special about months worth of work and modeling within a 10 year program?
And, what happened to all the models, simulators and research we know was done for Apollo? Does that not count?

NASA Scale Models and a Propellant Dispersion Unit used in the Apollo Program from 1968 - 1975.
www.metacafe.com...


Construction of Model 2 used in the LOLA simulator: Project LOLA or Lunar Orbit and Landing Approach was a simulator built at Langley to study problems related to landing on the lunar surface. It was a complex project that cost nearly $2 million dollars.
www.nasaimages.org...:



I mean, thats not for Star Wars.

Hell imagine having to do a rover re-take, you've now got to somehow carefully scrub the sand for only those footprints made inbetween the photos you want to replace. It would be an immense undertaking.

Dont be fooled by all that, you are assuming the videos are clear enough to see all the footprints match what you see in the pictures. They are not. So all they had to do is worry about footprints in the pictures and for that they could have easily added them in post. Most likely they also used scale models to keep it simple.
And thats where you get weird looking photos like these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/453cb59c2a1a.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fc59908c06c.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e98c45f67917.gif[/atsimg]

But just incase you were wondering, yes I also found discrepancies between photos and videos when it came to tracks: The MET was taken behind the flag in the video, but there are no tracks in the photos showing this.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/224032fe5eea.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you ever thought that maybe that was the point?

Do you really think they would make such ridiculously subtle changes? Changes that in my entire posting lifetime here I have only ever seen mention of from you? You don't think that perhaps they would have done something a little bit more obvious?

And you think the USGOV are what, the good guys?


Yeah well you explain to me why this guy is being tortured and stripped naked for not even being convicted for a crime and then we can talk:

Manning has spent the last five months detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia—before that he spent two months in a military jail in Kuwait, all the while facing conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and even torture. Manning was charged with the unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been held in solitary confinement for 23 out of 24 hours a day—seven months straight. Manning’s activities have been heavily restricted—he is denied the right to exercise in his cell. He is denied a pillow and sheets. In what seems to be punishment straight out of a Nazi horror movie, medical personal administer anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the debilitating effects of the isolation.

www.deathandtaxesmag.com...

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe they weren't so subtle:

Apollo 12:

Conrad comes out of the shadow of the Lunar Module and says:

"Hey man, this sun is bright. It seems to be as if somebody had a lightspot in a hand..."

Conrad collects samples and says:

"I will tell you what ... you know, this sun ... it's really as if somebody had turned on a super spotlight..."

Conrad wonders about the missing landing crater:

"The landing engine - it's just the same as with Neil. The engine has not produced a crater at all! [...] Look at the lading engine - it has not produced even a hole!"

Conrad about the flag "on the Moon":

"This American flag looks fine, just aside the Lunar Module, is it? It looks like a model."

and the infamous

"This was the best simulation we ever had."

Originally posted by FoosM
When were all these photos released to the public?

The photos have been released in various quantities and qualities over many years.

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know how many people quit NASA right before Apollo 11 and right after the Apollo program? I made a post about it earlier in this thread.

I did not answer this one either as I assume it is rhetorical.

Why? Do you have answers for it now?

Originally posted by FoosM
Have you seen all this evidence, has this evidence been put under independent scrutiny?

The evidence you discuss has been put under independent scrutiny. Many countries have flown moon missions, manned or unmanned, and space based collaboration has been occurring for many years. Every stage of the NASA missions was observed as much as possible by professionals and amateurs all over the world. This is why there are radio tracks of the capsules on their way to the moon, because people with simple equipment wanted to be involved.

Well thats a bold statement to make.
I need proof that this was the case.
Because so far, I haven't seen it.
For example, how many countries went to the moon without NASA's involvement?
And out of those, how many of those countries dont have US military bases occupying their lands?

Originally posted by FoosM
And what is this off-world evidence that you think cannot be recreated on Earth?

As for evidence that cannot be recreated on earth, the descent and landing footage shows radial dust ejecta, a phenomena which can only be recreated in a vacuum.

Are you sure there were no vacuum chambers in use by NASA?
Are you sure what you were watching wasn't a special effect?

Not to mention of course that earth's weather correlates perfectly,

With what? The moon?

that large quantities of samples were returned,

Who has had access to the large quantities of samples?
Which country?

that the tracks of the men and rovers are visible from orbit.

Not possible to fake in the digital age?

I could go on listing for some time, I don't doubt you will put your fingers in your ears, but I wish to illustrate to whoever is reading the sheer scale of evidence in favour of manned missions.

Well I didnt put my fingers in my ears. I used them to type you a response.

Originally posted by FoosM
Why would they spend all that money on film for it to get fogged by space radiation NEAR the van allen belt?

I have no idea why you would think that film but not humans being damaged by radiation would mean humans could not survive the radiation. How does that logic work exactly? Humans not in danger, so humans in danger?

Did I say that?
Try this, how can modern film get fogged in LEO but old 1960's film didnt get fogged in the VABs, or Interstellar Space and on the Moon? And no lead or water was used to protect it?

So out of 9 questions, I answered 6 directly, 1 indirectly. One was rhetorical, and the other I have answered for you here.

Do we really have to play such a silly game where I have to go back a whole few pages and quote stuff that you can read directly? You asked me 9 questions, here are 8 answers. Here are my unanswered / insufficiently answered questions for you:

Well sorry, but you are wrong.
You missed a few:

And while you are at it, see if you can explain
the differences in
1. shadow size and shape of subject and photographer
2. shadow location and angle of photographer
3. Gnomon size differences

And dont say NAT answered for you, I want to know what you think.

1. Why on earth would NASA spend any time at all faking shots of someone jumping into a rover, when in fact they could just take pictures of them jumping into the rover?
   
2. How is it possible that NASA would fake a sequence of photos, taking more than one take to do it, and forget that the main character was holding a sampler?
   
3. What particularly human property do they have which would render them incapable of realising an extremely obvious fact: If you take more photos in the time than you could have, it would be noticed by people like you?
   
4. What was the point you think NASA were aiming for?
   
5. If we were to believe that someone on the team responsible for faking these pictures wanted to provide evidence they were faked, how would they do it?
   
6. do you think people haven't ever been into space or something? You don't think we have ever even launched unmanned probes to the Moon? Or do you think NASA just forgot to take readings vitally important to their claim of sending men to the moon?
   

All good questions.
Questions that only NASA could give you answers to.
Ask them. They are the ones who made the mistake, I only found it.
So frankly I dont care why.

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...

reply to post by FoosM


Tsk, Tsk.

Same old tricks, I see. Will let exponent handle the majority, but found your greatest flaw is in believing any old crap from online (like that "Aussie" bloke! The *genius*.....>eye roll

reply to post by FoosM

Thats is not a full answer.
Like you admit, you are only speculating, but in truth, you dont have an answer to that problem.

I call that intellectual dishonesty to suggest that what you provided was an answer.
Because once you realized you didnt have an answer to the problem, you could have been honest and said.
"I dont have a good answer to your question"

Because you could have looked deeper into your speculation to come up with:
"Placed it somewhere out of the frame?" Where? How and Why?
"Dropped the Sampler?" Where? Who picked it up? How did it drop? Why wasn't noted in the transcripts?

Pay attention FoosM: it has already been noted that it was not mentioned in the transcripts because the people who wrote them up were not actually present. They knew as little about what happened as you or I.

Allow me to congratulate you on a dubious distinction: you are about to have a fallacy named in your honor. I call it "The FoosM Indeterminacy Fallacy." It goes like this: "If there is more than one reasonable explanation for an event or phenomenon, that event or phenomenon must be a hoax." Can you see why this is a fallacy? There may be many reasons, known only to the chicken, why a chicken would cross a road. Simply because we do not know which of them was the actual case does not mean that there is no chicken, nor that the chicken cannot cross the road. Let's look at this picture you have been ignoring again:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d4ebc46dcf3.jpg[/atsimg]

By your reasoning, if we cannot account for every detail in this photograph, it must be a hoax. Everything appears to be frozen in time, which leads, for example, to the figure in white apparently not being in contact with the ground. Since we do not know how long she remained in this position, it is possible that she was suspended by wires. It is more likely, however, that the camera simply captured her in the act of running. Granted, it is impossible to be certain about a scene we were not physically present to witness, some explanations are more likely than others. The street appears to be in South-east Asia, for example, but it could be a Hollywood back lot. We don't know for certain, but since the former is not impossible, it is a reasonable assumption. Given that, it is likely that the woman's cook pot contains fish stew or rice. We don't know that for certain, of course, but it's a very reasonable deduction. It might also contain mango curry. Or noodles. The fact that we don't know for sure doesn't mean that the scene never took place, or was, as you would put it, "faked."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Thats is not a full answer.
Like you admit, you are only speculating, but in truth, you dont have an answer to that problem.

I call that intellectual dishonesty to suggest that what you provided was an answer.
Because once you realized you didnt have an answer to the problem, you could have been honest and said.
"I dont have a good answer to your question"

Because you could have looked deeper into your speculation to come up with:
"Placed it somewhere out of the frame?" Where? How and Why?
"Dropped the Sampler?" Where? Who picked it up? How did it drop? Why wasn't noted in the transcripts?

Pay attention FoosM: it has already been noted that it was not mentioned in the transcripts because the people who wrote them up were not actually present. They knew as little about what happened as you or I.

DJ that is the most off the wall thing I ever heard.

Transcripts are made up of what was said during their simulations.
The so called astronauts were constantly talking and made mention of every small occurrence that happened.
For the astronaut to jump and lose his sampler he would have said something;
Like, "I have to get off the rover to go pick up my sampler.
Or, "Hey Gene do me a favor and pick up my sampler"

Come on, you guys are really reaching with your explanations.
Its embarrassing.

reply to post by FoosM

The so called astronauts were constantly talking and made mention of every small occurrence that happened.

That you know of. We don't know about the endless things they may not have mentioned. You're the one who continues to reach.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Tsk, Tsk.

Same old tricks, I see. Will let exponent handle the majority, but found your greatest flaw is in believing any old crap from online (like that "Aussie" bloke! The *genius*.....>eye roll

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The so called astronauts were constantly talking and made mention of every small occurrence that happened.

That you know of. We don't know about the endless things they may not have mentioned. You're the one who continues to reach.

Oh so you have evidence that these transcripts are incomplete?
Do tell.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Continuing on, there are NO MORE instances of the word "simulation" in the transcript. All the way to splashdown.

Foosm shows another instance of the word "simulation" being used ..
Is he wrong or you ???

reply to post by FoosM

Oh so you have evidence that these transcripts are incomplete?
Do tell.

I know it's difficult FoosM, but think. These are transcripts of audio recordings. They only record what the astronauts and capcom said out loud. They need not have described everything they did. Sometimes the transcribers need to conjecture or speculate on what the astronauts were doing during moments of silence... or when there is ambiguous dialog like: "Ready?" "I got three that time." Why didn't Schmidt say: "Are you ready to take a series of photographs while I leap into rover with my LRV tool strapped to my left hand side?" Why didn't Cernan say: "Okay, I can't help but notice that the LRV tool is bouncing up?" People just don't narrate their lives like that.