Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by dragnet53


LOL you love to argue don't you? So it makes me think you never even passed american history.

I'm not arguing. You made a direct statement, that the "Russians were first in everything". I'm merely asking you to supply a list of those things.

You made the claim, now support it.

The arguing starts when you post them.

Originally posted by dragnet53


Seems like you just keep repeating the argument over and over with just the same old defense. But hey when the president gives money to go to the moon by 2010 and then leaves office. NASA decided to change its mind to go something else. then a new president comes in and they want more money to go to the moon.

well all I have to say is GO PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

So now you've taken to lying?

Obama Cancels Moon Program

It wasn't NASA that "changed its mind", the new president came in and withdrew funding. As a matter of fact, NASA is still developing much of the same technology.

reply to post by FoosM


look at 1:01 on in that video, where he is moving the frames back and forward. All around the flag in the background you can see the same movement as that which is alleged to be the actual flag moving. Same direction, same magnitude.

Stop ridiculing for a second and watch for yourself.

reply to post by FoosM

1.
I dont know what your referring to or what argument is concerning the dust.
What exactly are you trying to say? Whats the topic?

If these are questions you want answered, I'd think you'd remember asking them:

And how do you explain Apollo 11 where clearly the engines were shut after touchdown. And clearly they announced seeing dust rise, I believe, around 40 feet off the ground due to their engine?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I assume you are referring to this:

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

www.history.nasa.gov...

Are your reading comprehension skills that poor, or are you deliberately distorting the facts?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM

 

look at 1:01 on in that video, where he is moving the frames back and forward. All around the flag in the background you can see the same movement as that which is alleged to be the actual flag moving. Same direction, same magnitude.

Stop ridiculing for a second and watch for yourself.

Sorry dude, the only thing moving besides the flag is the astronaut.
And you can tell that the flag is moving because its movement is similar to previous movements.

Unless you can point out an object that is moving as well, then you have done nothing debunk.

reply to post by FoosM


Are you starring your own posts?

I mean....this post shows it logged in to ATS at :33 past the hour, and when I happend to read it, time was only :35 past?

Puzzling, very very puzzling, indeed.

(OR, maybe you have a fan? Well, bully for you!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a present for you (OH, and I am NOT the 'fan'...)

It is the 16mm DAC video from Apollo 11, time-enhanced. (Sped up, so it won't be as boring).




You may wish to closely observe when they get around to mounting the FLAG, and watch them move about. FLAG does NOT move (except, of course, when they are in direct contact with it)...hmmmmm.

But, of course, you'll hand-wave this away, too, with some incredibly (to you) clever witty remark, and steer the discussion in another direction....





[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Well I would say we have debunked the so called anomolies most of which are because the people who believe them have no understanding of PHOTOGRAPHY for the no stars ,shadows, how they could take focused and well exposed pictures etc etc.

We have the LRO pictures now, Nasa documented and took pictures of the equipment on the Moon.
Now if the LRO pictures match the locations and layout claimed thats proof.

Look at this picture one half a still from Apollo DAC video as they left the Moon.The other half taken by the LRO.
This picture first posted by jra on here.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Now NONE of the craters or objects in the Apollo half can be seen or photographed from the Earth and the LRO SIDE matches even the track marks!

We went to the MOON , Mog from Zog did not have a base or spaceship parked (the livingmoon )

whats the problem

[edit on 12-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Ahhh so you can debunk photos... ok, lets see how well you can do?

Take a look at this photo
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The first issue.
At what setting could this photo be taken where you point the camera directly an unfiltered sun, and have the rest of the photo still be exposed?

How could photo even be possible with direct solar radiation hitting the film?

Why is there a halo around the Sun considering the moon has basically no atmosphere?

Why are the shadows of the alien objects (LM, etc) different in size and color/hue of the rocks and craters on the ground?

And finally, take a look at the crosshairs.... that should be part of the camera.
Take notice of the cross hair at the top right hand corner, and explain how it can have a shadow?


More issues with crosshairs:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Please explain.



[edit on 12-5-2010 by FoosM]

[edit on 12-5-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM
Good idea, go make a list then answer them, Im doing plenty already.

I can't find any

Maybe you can help out and give the top 5 most important unanswered questions?

Oh really... you cant find any?
Let me throw you a bone then:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the questions is why there is no crater under the LM? Answer: because there was not enough thrust at low enough altitude to create a crater.

And how can you prove that?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Are you starring your own posts?

I mean....this post shows it logged in to ATS at :33 past the hour, and when I happend to read it, time was only :35 past?

Puzzling, very very puzzling, indeed.

(OR, maybe you have a fan? Well, bully for you!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a present for you (OH, and I am NOT the 'fan'...)

It is the 16mm DAC video from Apollo 11, time-enhanced. (Sped up, so it won't be as boring).

You may wish to closely observe when they get around to mounting the FLAG, and watch them move about. FLAG does NOT move (except, of course, when they are in direct contact with it)...hmmmmm.

But, of course, you'll hand-wave

this away, too, with some incredibly (to you) clever witty remark, and steer the discussion in another direction....

[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Well here is my witty remark, what does that have to do with the other obvious flag moving video? Explain the correlation, the connection... what does it exactly prove?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

1.
I dont know what your referring to or what argument is concerning the dust.
What exactly are you trying to say? Whats the topic?

If these are questions you want answered, I'd think you'd remember asking them:

And how do you explain Apollo 11 where clearly the engines were shut after touchdown. And clearly they announced seeing dust rise, I believe, around 40 feet off the ground due to their engine?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I assume you are referring to this:

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

www.history.nasa.gov...

Are your reading comprehension skills that poor, or are you deliberately distorting the facts?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DJW001]

Quick question, was the craft flying horizontal or vertical?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

1.
I dont know what your referring to or what argument is concerning the dust.
What exactly are you trying to say? Whats the topic?

If these are questions you want answered, I'd think you'd remember asking them:

And how do you explain Apollo 11 where clearly the engines were shut after touchdown. And clearly they announced seeing dust rise, I believe, around 40 feet off the ground due to their engine?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I assume you are referring to this:

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

www.history.nasa.gov...

Are your reading comprehension skills that poor, or are you deliberately distorting the facts?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DJW001]

Quick question, was the craft flying horizontal or vertical?

Looking down from the top of the gantry on to the simulated Lunar Surface. James Hansen writes:

"To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight legged, red and white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375)

From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966.

"Ground based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight test simulator which can provide real life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley. ...

The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo driven vertical cables. The remaining one sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds. A research vehicle, weighing 10,500 pounds fully loaded, is being used and is shown [in this picture]. This vehicle is provided with a large degree of flexibility in cockpit positions, instrumentation, and control parameters. It has main engines of 6,000 pounds thrust, throttle able down to 600 pounds, and attitude jets. This facility is studying the problems of the final 200 feet of lunar landing and the problems of maneuvering about in close proximity to the lunar surface."

Published in James R. Hansen, Space flight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.
----

Pretty much takes care of the lift off and landing

reply to post by FoosM

The settings would appear to be a small aperture. Everything except the Sun and the Moon's surface which is illuminated by the Sun is underexposed.

What type of solar radiation in particular are you concerned about? Glass is pretty good at stopping a lot of it.

The crosshair has a shadow for the same reason there is a halo around the sun. Internal camera reflections. The light from the Sun enters the camera. Most of it exposes the film. Some, however, is reflected by the russeu plate (on which the crosshairs are etched), to the lens from where it is reflected back to the film, along with the shadow of the crosshair. You will see that effect whenever the Sun appears in the image because of the intensity of the light. You will also see that the presence and location of the second shadow is dependent on the position of the Sun in the frame.

reply to post by FoosM

And how can you prove that?

I already addressed this, you ignored it.

Way back some pages.

Do this, for yourself, and then you can reassure YOURSELF (you don't need anyoone else to do it for you):

Look up the specifications of the thrust of the LM descent engine. Many sources online have them.

Look up the specs for the LM descent engine nozzle design, and size parameters.

THEN you will be able (once you calculate the nozzle opening area size) the effective thrust, at various thrust settings, of the engine exhaust gases, in pounds per square inch (or what ever unit you feel comfortable doing the maths in).

As I said previously, you could enlist the assistance of your science teacher at school, perhaps. Maybe a class project?

Then THINK a bit more about it. Did the Astronauts sink up to their knees in the "soil" (regolith)? Up to their ankles? Toes? NO. The loosely scattered regolith particles were not very deep at all...hardly a centimeter.

The soil beneath was far denser. "Hard-packed", so to speak.

AND, conditions were different at each landing site....just as you expect to see here on Earth.

Really, ALL of this is available online, to research! It isn't rocket science ( oh, wait....the bit about engine thrust is )

And Another Thing...there is NO AIR on the Moon. THINK about that, would you?

NO AIR. NO AIR.

Why is that significant? What do you think would be the cause of most distrubances of soil on Earth, in a similar situation (engine exhaust gases blowing out of a cone-shaped nozzle)??? Yup! The AIR is affected to, which contributes MASS to the movement of the other MASS (the soil, grass, rocks, whatever).

On Moon, NO AIR, the exhaust gases don't have AIR to push around. Their effective force, to support the spacecraft, and thrust the spacecraft, come from simple Newtonian equations, reaction/opposite reaction.

THAT is why the nozzle is shaped in a cone....to FOCUS, on the spacecraft, the gas forces...they spread out, on exit, and lose much of their velocity and effectiveness...and especially when there is NO AIR there to also move around.

Ask your science teacher, too.

reply to post by FoosM


You posted a diocument describing testing and attempts at simulating, to the best capability possible on Earth, a Lunar landing...and then you say:

Pretty much takes care of the lift off and landing

Someone else asked about your reading and comprehension skills...

I suggest you take another stab at that document excerpt. I understood its intent perfectly.

I did NOT understand your disjointed comment, above, in reference to it.

reply to post by FoosM

Quick question, was the craft flying horizontal or vertical?

Can't you look it up for yourself?

They go from a pitch of about 77 degrees at 102:38:20 to a pitch of about 6 degrees when Armstrong takes manual control at 102:43:15. At touchdown the craft's axis would be nearly vertical. The 16mm camera recording this was in a LM window, which is slanted to provide "downward" visibility.

Originally posted by Phage

The settings would appear to be a small aperture. Everything except the Sun and the Moon's surface which is illuminated by the Sun is underexposed.
-----
Ok but what settings?
The only had a few to choose from.


What type of solar radiation in particular are you concerned about? Glass is pretty good at stopping a lot of it.
----
Pretty good? A lot? How much would you need to fog film?


The crosshair has a shadow for the same reason there is a halo around the sun. Internal camera reflections. The light from the Sun enters the camera. Most of it exposes the film. Some, however, is reflected by the russeu plate (on which the crosshairs are etched), to the lens from where it is reflected back to the film, along with the shadow of the crosshair. You will see that effect whenever the Sun appears in the image because of the intensity of the light. You will also see that the presence and location of the second shadow is dependent on the position of the Sun in the frame.
-----
As you know this is a theory of yours, and not fact. Therefore its not a debunk.
Furthermore, what you say is not true, there are pictures of the sun, on the same magazine where this doesn't occur. It also occurs in pictures where the sun is not frame. The shadows are also not consistent. They go in different directions and at different degrees.

So I dont buy the internal camera reflections.
Try this:

Why are there ghost images of the solar collector and that flag?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

And explain the blue astronaut?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Shadow side of the LM, yet we see clear reflections on the ladder and the button on the astronaut, and silver and gold foil, and other areas, where does the light source come from?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by FoosM

Shadow side of the LM, yet we see clear reflections on the ladder and the button on the astronaut, and silver and gold foil, and other areas, where does the light source come from?

The back-scatter from the lunar surface. Note the absence of shadows: this suggests ambient light rather than a discreet source, eg, studio lights.

reply to post by FoosM

I don't know what settings. I wasn't there. I'm not sure what you mean by "a few to choose from", the Hasselblads had full range of aperture settings.

There are a lot of things you don't buy, we know that. That doesn't mean they aren't correct. As I said, the position and presence of the doubled crosshairs depends on the location of the Sun in the frame. I would like to see some examples of the effect when the Sun isn't in the frame though.

The smudge appears in a series of frames (6813-6852). Dust on the lens probably. On bright objects it has a blue cast, on dark objects reddish. It's readily apparent here:
history.nasa.gov...

The surface of the moon reflects light, just like any surface does. That's also why no stars are visible in the images.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

I don't know what settings. I wasn't there. I'm not sure what you mean by "a few to choose from", the Hasselblads had full range of aperture settings.

There are a lot of things you don't buy, we know that. That doesn't mean they aren't correct. As I said, the position and presence of the doubled crosshairs depends on the location of the Sun in the frame. I would like to see some examples of the effect when the Sun isn't in the frame though.

The smudge appears in a series of frames (6813-6852). Dust on the lens probably. On bright objects it has a blue cast, on dark objects reddish. It's readily apparent here:
history.nasa.gov...

The surface of the moon reflects light, just like any surface does. That's also why no stars are visible in the images.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by Phage]

Picture of Sun but without crosshair shadow
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Picture of Sun but 2 with crosshair shadow
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun not in picture but 2 crosshairs with shadow, and they are not next to each other
www.lpi.usra.edu...

all types of crosshair abnormalities
www.lpi.usra.edu...