Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

MOTHERLODE

After Surveyor 5, the same conclusion was also made:
lunar surface = earth's basaltic rock

MOTHERLODE +1

That is the Milwaukee Sentinal from September 30, 1967
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e0a01364d43.jpg[/atsimg]

SLAM DUNK!

How high is that slam dunk space.com??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad73b0455fe4.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by dpd11


Are you STILL clinging on to the retro-reflectors as proof?

:bnghd:

Please tell me you've finally downgraded the presence of retro-reflectors to evidence. If not, could you answer the following questions:

1. Does receiving a signal from the Apollo 15 retro-reflectors on Earth prove conclusively that man was on the moon?

2. Does receiving a signal from the Lunokhod 2 retro-reflectors on Earth prove conclusively that man was on the moon?

and remember:

Hasty Conclusion

Description: A Hasty Conclusion occurs when an argument presents relevant evidence but does not necessarily lead us to a credible thesis. Here, the arguer ignores the likelihood of their being alternative, and possibly better, explanations for the phenomenon in question.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by dpd11

 

It's already been mentioned that the Russians also put reflectors on the moon..
Did they have men there to do it?

Exactly BiB. Not sure if/why our friend is being deliberately obtuse.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Please post a photograph of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit.
Arbitrary second line.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

SLAM DUNK!

How high is that slam dunk space.com??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad73b0455fe4.jpg[/atsimg]

Does that look anywhere close to this?


Of course, they are in a cumbersome heavy suit.
But listen to their voices... when charlie lands on his backpack, does he even make a sound?

I love how these guys hid behind the rover to do this stunt everyone had been waiting for.
And again, nobody jumps like that. Only if you get pulled up by a string. Normally you would jump forward not straight up to end up landing on your back. Especially when you have weight on your back. Who would be dumb enough of to jump straight up... oh wait.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Please post a photograph of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit.
Arbitrary second line.

wow.. you totally missed that point~!!

do you REALLY need a picture ..................? the math from NASA isn't enough for you ?? The picture from SPACE.com where the guy is slam dunking pretty much spells it out.. for me anyways..

reply to post by FoosM


So... you can't post a photo of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit. Fail.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So... you can't post a photo of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit. Fail.

One of your sillier posts..

The "slam dunk" pic was from NASA..

Why not ask them???????

reply to post by DJW001


Yet the Rovers were very light due to obvious weight restrictions but do we ever see them getting airborne as you'd probably expect??

reply to post by FoosM


yep .. first thing I thought of as well~!! According the NASA, they should be jumping in the video around 25ft as a rough guesstimate

I edited my post because I realizes you were referring to the STUPID NASA slam dunk pic..

Are NASA idiots??

Yes, on earth a 7' athlete may get close to a 10' slam dunk..
That means, with arms stretched upwards he actually left the ground by a "MAXIMUM" of maybe 2'...

On the moon that might be equal to 12' and including his 7' height mean a 19' slam dunk...

Where NASA come up with over 50' is beyond BS...

reply to post by backinblack

One of your sillier posts..

The "slam dunk" pic was from NASA..

Why not ask them???????

No, the "slam dunk" graphic was from space.com. In the lower left hand corner are the words "Source: NASA." This may be referring to the information about the Moon's interior, not necessarily the ridiculous claim that astronauts can jump ten feet on Earth. What Sayanara is doing is the equivalent of taking an article about compound interest that states "if you deposited one dollar in your bank account when Jesus was born..." and using it to prove that ancient Romans had banks and used American currency.

reply to post by DJW001


Can't believe you'd bring the Roman empire into a thread about space travel.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Please post a photograph of an astronaut making a ten foot slam dunk on Earth in his space suit.
Arbitrary second line.

Its not basketball, but you get the idea:

4:00


Alot of things in this video, I didnt see happening in videos.
What I see in Apollo videos is borderline absurd.
Take for example playing football with boulders and rocks.


What kind of craziness is this?

reply to post by FoosM

Alot of things in this video, I didnt see happening in videos.

As usual, one has to wonder why, if it was faked, did they not try to make it look like what people were expecting?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

Weren't you just implying that data from the laser ranging instrument would reveal that there was nothing at the Apollo landing sites? Now you have the data, get to work.

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

Foosm, remember when you got upset when I asked for radiation data to support one of your claims, but admitted I didn't understand the data you presented?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

Weren't you just implying that data from the laser ranging instrument would reveal that there was nothing at the Apollo landing sites? Now you have the data, get to work. If you can use this data to prove that Apollo was a hoax, I will publicly "apollogize."

Must be tough on Apollo believers also..
Seems every time NASA is given a chance to 100% prove the landings, there is always an excuse why they can't.

I like how you constantly act like your judgement is the same as objective scientific one. I also note how you automatically discount anything presented as conclusive from the government, because it's from the government, instead of its actual evidentiary value.

And then you accuse others of blindly trusting the government, when you're blindly doubting the government. That's just as bad as blind faith, I think.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by dpd11

 

The majority believed the earth was flat ya know.

Most educated people of Columbus' day knew the Earth was round. This was common knowledge since Ancient Greek times. The Old World man-on-the-street of 1492 was not well-educated, IIRC. So, very few people who had any idea what they were talking about thought the Earth was flat.

WWII is a plain STUPID comparison..
The landings have only ONE source of evidence, NASA...

Plus Russia. Plus the Australian telescopes. Plus who-knows-how-man ham-radio operators. Plus India and JAXA. Plus the contractors.

Do you even register all these times you're proved wrong? Because I'm pretty sure we've told you that before.

The entire program affected very few people here on earth, unlike a war that killed 60million..

Really? Billions of dollars, thousands of men, and several years of fierce competition between the US and USSR, invention of items and advances that are still in use today, and over 93% of the American public (125 mil) watching on TV "affected very few people"?

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063

 

You mean the government wants possession of their historical artifact that Mitchell allegedly took without permission? Gosh, that's suspicious.

You REALLY think he just snuck it through all of NASA's security, including time spent in quarantine??
I wonder where he hid it.

I said "allegedly". Mitchell claims he was given the camera as a gift. He might be lying, or there might just be some innocent confusion. The mission was not the only time he had access to the cameras; the astronauts were instructed to practice with the cameras at home. If NASA honestly thinks Mitchell stole the camera, it's entirely reasonable they'd want it back.

BTW, the camera is apparently not the only item he took..
Are NASA so concerned about the other items or just the camera for some odd reason???

I dunno.

You'd think they'd have sent someone to break into Mitchell's house and steal it, then make it look like a standard robbery, rather than making a public fuss about it, were they concerned about evidence being in the wrong hands.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

There is no amount of evidence that will convince you once you've set the bar as high as you have, so there is no point in my trying.

Ahh, asking for REAL proof from anyone but the defendant is setting the bar too high..

The prosecution is who has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has presented their story, you need to find evidence that contradicts it, not just point to what you think are holes, then when the defense attorney shows they aren't holes, say that the defendant could be lying.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

000063 is simply providing a good opportunity to bring up Brian Mason

who is considered an *expert* in meteorites & moon rocks, and determined, in 1982,

While examining meteorites collected by U.S. expeditions to Antarctica, he wrote in his notes that they seemed to be rocks from the moon, an idea that astrophysicists had said was impossible. Unwilling to show up other scholars in the field, his published comment was that they "had a passing resemblance to certain Apollo 15 lunar rocks." Within a year, other scientists agreed. It wasn't the first or last time his work forced a reconsideration of an entire field.

See it only takes one man of great determination to change the thinking of an entire field of science!

During the 1960s, an upsurge in space research and the imminent Apollo programme stimulated increasing requests for meteorites. With Ed Henderson of the Smithsonian Institute, Mason initiated a search for new meteorites in the Australian Outback, where the arid desert conditions were favourable to their survival and recovery. In four expeditions between 1963 and1967, the pair covered 40036 miles and made a significant number of finds. Then in 1965, Mason joined the Smithsonian, as the meteorite division expanded in anticipation of the need for significant scientific backup to support the lunar programme.

So to support your theory of a secret conspiracy, you cite the fact that NASA was openly looking for moon rocks that had fallen to Earth. That seems odd, since you'd think that NASA would want to compare Earth-moonrocks with Moon-moonrocks, and would therefore seek to obtain as many of said Earth-moonrocks before they got the Moon-moonrocks which they'd be comparing them with.

In February 1969, an exploding fireball scattered tons of the Allende meteorite over the Mexican countryside. In July, the Apollo 11 astronauts made the first Moon landing, returning with 22kg of lunar material and in December of that year, Japanese glaciologists picked up nine meteorites on the icecap near the Yamoto Mountains of Antarctica. Source www.geol.canterbury.ac.nz...

In other news,

During the local summer of 1966–67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management. ...

Meteorites are prepared for study and conservation in museums using a laboratory clean room process that eliminates the water in the sample. It is plausible that Apollo moon rocks were prepared using that same process, to remove the water first and, coincidentally, it could also be used to remove any traces or mineral signatures that could confuse an astrophysicist about a meteorites terrestrial resting place. NASA (in the 1960's - where money was no object) could have collected 22kg of meteorites from various places on earth.

I said "proof", SJ. Not your unbacked speculation which ignores micrometeorite scarring. Proof that the moon rocks were faked.

Because back in the day Brian Mason proved that moon rocks can be found right here on planet Earth.

Meteorites ("Earth-moonrocks") are different from rocks found on the moon ("Moon-moonrocks"). There is no known way to fake all the characteristics of Moon-moonrocks. According to many scientists, including, um, Brian Mason, who has never said the Moon-moonrocks were fake.

Also, FoosM quote-mined my post. And then you quoted him, to avoid having to respond to me directly, so no one would notice how you are avoiding the rest of my post, which is reproduced below.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

An argument by Appeal to authority?

Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy if the person in question is an authority. I can listen to my cousin Jim-Bob about my stomach pains, or I can listen to a doctor. The doctor is by definition, more likely to determine the problem accurately than Jim-Bob, unless Jim-Bob is also a doctor. And when thousands of said authorities has confirmed said evidence for several decades, and their opposition is usually unlettered people on the Internet who find "anomalies" that "look wrong", I'm gonna take the former's side.

Remember that there will only be 12 expert authorities on the subject of the Apollo moon landings. 3 of these experts have passed away leaving 9 of them alive.

What are you talking about?

One of the still living experts is Edgar Mitchell who believes in aliens

Well, 80 year olds are often senile.

and has in his personal possession an Apollo 14 DAC camera that he wasn't supposed to bring back from the moon. And NASA want's that camera back ...... really bad ..... you going to see Apollo 18?

You mean the government wants possession of their historical artifact that Mitchell allegedly took without permission? Gosh, that's suspicious.

I don't see what any of this has to do with proving the landings were faked, relying on your usual empty rhetoric.