Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
So 000063 are you DJW001 who is actually Phil Plait?
c75N4reUpHs

He is? Nice to be in such illustrious company, though I could've sworn ol' Phil has less hair than DJ, though.

No, I'm not. I chose this username because I couldn't think of anything that had basically no relation to my real name, and I like the idea of being anonymous. Which is why I've mentioned as little personal info as possible.

I didnt say you did.
I was pointing it out.

So as long as there is no confirmation of a an Apollo craft managing to leave LEO and landing on the moon, you have a big hole in the story. And like you said, people had to take NASA's word that it did.


And thats where skeptics should step in.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
So 000063 are you DJW001 who is actually Phil Plait?
c75N4reUpHs

He is? Nice to be in such illustrious company, though I could've sworn ol' Phil has less hair than DJ, though.

No, I'm not. I chose this username because I couldn't think of anything that had basically no relation to my real name, and I like the idea of being anonymous. Which is why I've mentioned as little personal info as possible.

edit on 2011/5/1 by 000063 because: Trimming.

Fair enough, how we just have to wait for DJ to confirm that he is not Phil Plait....

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063[stuff]

Now, about my post of videos rebutting Jarrah.

I didnt say you did.
I was pointing it out.

So as long as there is no confirmation of a an Apollo craft managing to leave LEO and landing on the moon, you have a big hole in the story. And like you said, people had to take NASA's word that it did.

And thats where skeptics should step in.

Are you positing that they decided to fake a moon landing by almost going to the moon?

That would make it the most inefficient conspiracy ever. As long as they were over there, they might as well just take a whack at doing it for real, one would think.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
So 000063 are you DJW001 who is actually Phil Plait?
c75N4reUpHs

He is? Nice to be in such illustrious company, though I could've sworn ol' Phil has less hair than DJ, though.

No, I'm not. I chose this username because I couldn't think of anything that had basically no relation to my real name, and I like the idea of being anonymous. Which is why I've mentioned as little personal info as possible.

edit on 2011/5/1 by 000063 because: Trimming.

Fair enough, how we just have to wait for DJ to confirm that he is not Phil Plait....

Why would that matter?

reply to post by FoosM


Yet another desperate, and failed attempt. By that familiar YouTuber. You will latch on to, and cling to anything, to support your deluded fantasies, won't you?

www.youtube.com...

That is the YT vid...not embedded, to save space.

Over 10 minutes of historical REAL space info and films....all REAL, despite the inane mutterings of the YouTube member who edited together, and struggled pointlessly to prove something that is unprovable.

For those who don't wish to watch...in essence, this uneducated person's beliefs, and claims, are that NONE of the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo spacecraft launches contained anyone onboard. NONE!! Yeah, crazy, right? Insanely delusional, even.

"Based on what?", you are sure to ask.

In a word....VIBRATION. Yeah...that is his "proof"!

It opens with testimony from several of the still living actual Apollo Astronauts describing what every space buff already knows, from reading on it for years, in the technical books and biographies.....those things vibrate a lot. We know, too, that the Space Shuttle does as well.

The premise of this deluded, sad excuse for a "hoax believer" is that the recordings of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts' voices during the most intense point of spacecraft vibration don't match the "same" sort of sound in some....SOME....examples (cleverly selected, I am quite certain) of moder Shuttle launches.

THERE IS A REASON!!!!

FoosM? DO you know? Surely.....you're so smart, you must be able to understand some differences in the various spacecraft?

The TYPES of vibration are totally different....not all "vibrations" and "rides" that are exhibited are identical....DIFFERENT DESIGNS make the BIG difference!! But, it's far easier to hand-wave that away, and just stupidly fall for the "hoax believer"s claims...ANY claims, as long as they seem to fit YOUR biased beliefs, eh?



It's called "amplitude" and "frequency". Relying merely on a person's verbal recollection, years later is just laziness...and disingenuous(ness).

(I noticed, also in the video....when the maker edited in some insets of Shuttle cockpit videos....the rate of play was sped up...to exaggerate the physical movements and shaking of the occupants. TYPICALLY, deceptive of the "hoaxists"....it is a common M.O.).

OK...the Shuttle...the MAJOR difference? The SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters). Those are responsible for the majority of the shaking, on that vehicle. IF you bother to study the accounts of Astronauts who have flown it, they know that about two minutes after lift-off, the "ride" smooths out considerably. The SRBs burn for only about the first two minutes.

Here is a montage, but there are some actual radio transmissions from the flight crew, to hear their voices....as is evident, the video that was made intentionally exaggerated....:



In addition, the design of the seats themselves is VERY different, comparing Shuttle to all the earlier spacecraft. The seats, on Shuttle, tend to be moving a heck of a lot more than the "couches" that were used on Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.

In fact....my many years flying included quite a lot of turbulence encounters....some pretty strong. Very similar, when look at the Shuttle footage, to what we experience in an airplane (though, for different reasons of course). Only very occasionally (hardly ever, actually) could you hear it in my voice (or, could I hear it in other pilots' voices) on the radio, when transmitting and conversing in those situations.


What this latest effort at perpetuating a "hoax" belief does, is merely demonstrate the terrible lack of knowledge and experience that many people have, in this subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, oh....forgot to include a logical fallacy from the video FoosM presented:

The maker of that, in his contempt and disdain, and feigned "incredulity" about Apollo...."asks" facetiously about a comment made by one of the Apollos....about the loudness, and difficulty communicating to each other, especially the very first moments of the lift-off. (BTW...they were wearing headsets, and voice-activated boom mics!! Duh!!).

See? The video maker doesn't realize his contradiction there....HE wishes to convey a "belief" that no-one was onboard....yet, HOW DID THE ASTRONAUTS KNOW, then? About actual on-board conditions, unless they were there!!!

This is why the "hoax believers" (posting on YouTube) are, well....just off their rockers. They don't think things through, all the way. Kinda sad, really........ but, boy! Do they all come along and "slap each other on the back!"

Pathetic.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Let's pretend for a moment that they have proven their case on the Internets. What now? What will they do about it?
Post more videos? Whine louder?

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063[stuff]

Now, about my post of videos rebutting Jarrah.

I didnt say you did.
I was pointing it out.

So as long as there is no confirmation of a an Apollo craft managing to leave LEO and landing on the moon, you have a big hole in the story. And like you said, people had to take NASA's word that it did.

And thats where skeptics should step in.

Are you positing that they decided to fake a moon landing by almost going to the moon?

That would make it the most inefficient conspiracy ever. As long as they were over there, they might as well just take a whack at doing it for real, one would think.

edit on 2011/5/1 by 000063 because: trimming

What are you talking about?
LEO is hardly going almost to the moon!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063[stuff]

Now, about my post of videos rebutting Jarrah.

I didnt say you did.
I was pointing it out.

So as long as there is no confirmation of a an Apollo craft managing to leave LEO and landing on the moon, you have a big hole in the story. And like you said, people had to take NASA's word that it did.

And thats where skeptics should step in.

Are you positing that they decided to fake a moon landing by almost going to the moon?

That would make it the most inefficient conspiracy ever. As long as they were over there, they might as well just take a whack at doing it for real, one would think.

edit on 2011/5/1 by 000063 because: trimming

What are you talking about?
LEO is hardly going almost to the moon!

Looks like I misunderstood. I thought LEO was some sort of acronym for the Command or Lunar Modules that I wasn't familiar with, not "Low Earth Orbit".

Your post brings us right back around to the radio signals which were put exactly where NASA said they would be, followed by multiple stations. In fact, Phill Webb suggests an even more efficient way to fake the moon landings than Jarrah's theory, using the same resources Jarrah says NASA might've used. It's simpler, and thus, more reliable than Jarrah's proposed theory, and he came up with it in a few minutes, while the rocket scientists at NASA apparently decided to go with a really, really complicated one for some reason.

reply to post by 000063


Yup.

In fact, Phill Webb suggests an even more efficient way to fake the moon landings than Jarrah's theory...

As usual, in order to continue the ridiculous "conspiracy" argument for a "hoax", they have to make it ever more "Rube Goldberg-esque"......(guess many youngsters will not be familiar, so ------):

en.wikipedia.org...

He is best known for a series of popular cartoons depicting complex gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways.

Watch
Alan Shepard: Mercury Freedom 7, May 5, 1961


what a quiet ride. LOL.

Curious, why didnt Apollo have cameras in the cockpits during launch?

Compare it to:
Aurora 7



@4:14
A cockpit drop from an airplane.
Same thing they could have done with Apollo CM:

Stop that.

You have this profoundly irritating tactic of just posting videos with little or no explanations as to their contents or relevance. It's the equivalent of throwing up debating chaff, and you often resort to it when you don't want to or cannot answer questions.

reply to post by FoosM

Fair enough, how we just have to wait for DJ to confirm that he is not Phil Plait....

Although I'm flattered you would think that I am a PhD in astrophysics, I have already said that I am not Phil Plaitt. Have you ever affirmed that you're not Jarrah White?

Einstein is often quoted as saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think that it more accurately describes a specific sort of psychosis; one that is now known as Obsessive-compulsive disorder. That is what debating in this thread is like.

Originally posted by 000063
Stop that.

You have this profoundly irritating tactic of just posting videos with little or no explanations as to their contents or relevance. It's the equivalent of throwing up debating chaff, and you often resort to it when you don't want to or cannot answer questions.

edit on 2011/5/1 by 000063 because: +

Its called evidence.
If I wanted to show strings holding up astronauts would I just write text about it, or must I provide the video to show the strings? Of course I would have to show video.

In this case I stated that the Freedom 7 lift off was a "quiet ride", which was connected to a recent post showing a discrepancy of apollo lift off testimony vs video and audio. And so I provided the video showing how quiet that ride was.

The other video showed how you could air drop the CM from a significant height using an airplane.

So what exactly are you crying about?
Im not going to stop backing up my statements with visual evidence when its available.
Because then you all will ask for the visual evidence

JW gets political.

In his latest video we can see that his wall is plastered with moon landing news clips. "Lies" of the past.
While he discusses current "lies"regarding the reported demise of OBL.

I think JW is showing how the media is being run by propaganda wing of the Government and how this propaganda wing was in effect during the Apollo missions. If you cant trust what is being said now, how can you trust what was said in the past? How do you moon hoax believers feel about this?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Fair enough, how we just have to wait for DJ to confirm that he is not Phil Plait....

Although I'm flattered you would think that I am a PhD in astrophysics, I have already said that I am not Phil Plaitt. Have you ever affirmed that you're not Jarrah White?

No, not Phil Plaitt, Im asking if you are Phil Plait.
I didnt see the post where you denied this.
And as you know, I have denied being JW several times in this thread.

Originally posted by 000063


Your post brings us right back around to the radio signals which were put exactly where NASA said they would be, followed by multiple stations. In fact, Phill Webb suggests an even more efficient way to fake the moon landings than Jarrah's theory, using the same resources Jarrah says NASA might've used. It's simpler, and thus, more reliable than Jarrah's proposed theory, and he came up with it in a few minutes, while the rocket scientists at NASA apparently decided to go with a really, really complicated one for some reason.

Good for Phil, so now that Phil has shown you how easy it was to fake, I guess you know
can see that it was faked right

So, what was JW's response to this video?

reply to post by FoosM

No, not Phil Plaitt, Im asking if you are Phil Plait.
I didnt see the post where you denied this.
And as you know, I have denied being JW several times in this thread.

I am not Phil Plait, Phillip Platt, Phillipe Platte, Phil Philpot, etc. On the other hand, since JW has been caught lying many, man, times there is no reason to believe he would not lie about his identity on this thread.

reply to post by FoosM

While he discusses current "lies"regarding the reported demise of OBL.

Notice how he twisted a speculation into a "fact?" The article said that bin Laden has "most likely," that is, "probably" already died due to renal failure. In JW's obsessive mind, this became a statement of fact, and thus a lie. He then collapses an entire train of historical events into a personal rant. Since he is on record claiming that he believes that NASA is responsible for the demolition of the World Trade Center, I wonder why he didn't demand that they be put on trial for war crimes as well?