Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by jra
[I have absolutely no idea what Foosm sees wrong with the photo and I hate these guessing games. Foos, could you just tell us what you think is wrong?

If he did so you would be able to tell him exactly why he's wrong........which is why all the conspriacy theorists....for pretty much all conspiracies ......try to avoid giving hard conclusions or facts.

Whenever they have done so in the past they have been shown incorrect, and they are nothing if not adaptable.

Now they use innuendo, evidence by association, and bald assertion without providing foundations for such assertions, as "evidence".

such "evidence" is difficult to fight against precisely because it is not based in fact, it shofts, hard questions about it simply never get answered as the believer sqiftly moves off to a different aspect.....

So, let me get this straight....you bang on about conspiricy theorists beings nutters, while at the same time you are in fact an actual member here, which is a conspiracy theory website.....

Why are you even here?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Debris was flying long "just before touchdown"

So what?

how about answering my questions, or will you avoid them as you avoid all questions that destroy the silly conspiracy theory!

Originally posted by FoosM

JW apparently doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass. While objects on the moon would weight 1/6th of what they do on earth, they still have the same mass. It takes the same amount of force to accelerate an object laterally no matter where you are (assuming a vacuum, etc). After all, F=ma. There's no gravitational component to that equation when you're perpendicular to the local gravitational field.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Debris was flying long "just before touchdown"

So what?

how about answering my questions, or will you avoid them as you avoid all questions that destroy the silly conspiracy theory!

Thanks for the great video Foosm,

My God i'm glad this man called Jarrah White is on our side.

A very intelligent person he is :-)

I think this 'no crater' thing is a very important point.

reply to post by nataylor

JW apparently doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass. While objects on the moon would weight 1/6th of what they do on earth, they still have the same mass. It takes the same amount of force to accelerate an object laterally no matter where you are (assuming a vacuum, etc). After all, F=ma. There's no gravitational component to that equation when you're perpendicular to the local gravitational field.

I also like the way he simply multiplies the thrust by six and claims that's how much force the engine was exerting!

Originally posted by Laokin
P.S.

How can Buzz Aldrin get away with punching a dude square in the jaw when dude didn't do anything but say in all intents and purposes "Buzz, it's my opinion you are a fraud."

That was a clear cut case of assault.

Actually it was the other way around. The "dude" assaulted him and he bunched in self defense.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

JW apparently doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass. While objects on the moon would weight 1/6th of what they do on earth, they still have the same mass. It takes the same amount of force to accelerate an object laterally no matter where you are (assuming a vacuum, etc). After all, F=ma. There's no gravitational component to that equation when you're perpendicular to the local gravitational field.

Here is, what I believe his response would be:

a possibility for the foot steps theroy, I felt was under tested considering the lander moved a lot of dust and loose soil during landing, and also being that no living animals live on the moon to compact the soil maybe the slightest impact could have shaken the flag staff

Originally posted by FoosM
Here is, what I believe his response would be:

That wouldn't be a very good response. The lateral acceleration is independent of gravity.

Originally posted by nataylor

That wouldn't be a very good response. The lateral acceleration is independent of gravity.

So why then bring it up?
What does lateral acceleration have to do with what JW was talking about?
Break it down.

Originally posted by FoosM

This is another well crafted video by Jarrah White. I liked the new Moonfaker theme at the end.. it sounds a lot like Hollywood. BTW, NASA's Apollo era films were enhanced by Hollywood production contractors. And FYI, all Apollo mission camera negatives were first screened through NPIC/CIA.

Originally posted by razrburn
a possibility for the foot steps theroy, I felt was under tested considering the lander moved a lot of dust and loose soil during landing, and also being that no living animals live on the moon to compact the soil maybe the slightest impact could have shaken the flag staff

Well one, NASA ruled that out.
2, the ground was pretty compact cause there was no crater made
3, if that was the case, why didnt we see more instances of flags moving due to Astronauts walking or even the rover driving by them?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is another well crafted video by Jarrah White. I liked the new Moonfaker theme at the end.. it sounds a lot like Hollywood. BTW, NASA's Apollo era films were enhanced by Hollywood production contractors. And FYI, all Apollo mission camera negatives were first screened through NPIC/CIA.

First, what you're saying is that you are more swayed by production values than content. It has already been pointed out that his argument is scientifically flawed. That explains a lot. Second, you need to present citations for your assertion that NASA's films were enhanced by "Hollywood contractors" and that the Apollo negatives were screened through NPIC/CIA. If you don't. we will know that you discovered it's not true.

Originally posted by FoosM
So why then bring it up?
What does lateral acceleration have to do with what JW was talking about?
Break it down.

Why does it matter? Why are you putting forward his argument as your own, if you don't understand it? There's no evidence in this video that JW understands inertia. He spends half the video bitching at his opponents for god's sake.

Also, you seem to have missed my latest post.

Originally posted by backinblack
Can I get some real facts with that or are you just posting for stars??

Yeah, and while he's at it, maybe he can provide me with some real facts showing there's no teapot orbiting Mars.

Oh wait no the point is that you can't prove a negative, if someone says pictures were filtered through the CIA they have to show evidence of it occurring, otherwise I could just say "They landed on the moon, prove me wrong" and dismiss any attempts immediately.

Can't work both ways.

reply to post by backinblack

Can I get some real facts with that or are you just posting for stars??

I assume you are directing that at Sayanarajupiter, who made two assertions that he has not backed up. Why do you keep turning up posting off topic remarks?

Originally posted by FoosM
So why then bring it up?
What does lateral acceleration have to do with what JW was talking about?
Break it down.

Because the primary direction of movement for any displaced material is going to be lateral. JW's math is strictly dealing with lofting forces, parallel to gravity. Very little of the force of the exhaust is going to be in that direction. So when he looks at how far the rocks are displaced laterally, his math is off.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
So why then bring it up?
What does lateral acceleration have to do with what JW was talking about?
Break it down.

Because the primary direction of movement for any displaced material is going to be lateral. JW's math is strictly dealing with lofting forces, parallel to gravity. Very little of the force of the exhaust is going to be in that direction. So when he looks at how far the rocks are displaced laterally, his math is off.

How is it off?
Im not saying you are wrong, but you are not providing anything for a layman to understand why you are right.
And, even if his math is off, how off is it? Do we get a crater or not?
Not even NASA/Researches are sure, based on computer models, what to really expect in a future landing.