Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Armstrong could not possibly have done this if he was in the shadow side of the LM.

So what? It's not pitch black in the shadow. He would still be able to see the ground in the shadowed side.

So you were there I guess? Or your evidence is?
Because your statement does not agree with the astronaut's description of being in shadow.
Nor the video/film that we see.


Secondly, after all this time touting light adaption/dark adaption as reasons for not seeing stars, now you want to say that Neil, with his visors down, was sufficiently dark adapted to his surroundings as he was going down the ladder?

reply to post by Helious

I can't understand those who still debate weather the moon has an atmosphere or not. I think there has been enough evidence collected to firmly attest to the moon having an atmosphere. That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

Okay, I'll bite. What evidence do you have that the Moon has an "atmosphere." Not a tenuous, temporary "exosphere," but an atmosphere dense enough to affect the fall of a feather and call 1/6 gravity into question.

reply to post by FoosM


That is an interesting piece of footage and one I have not seen before. Common sense would say that he should not have been illuminated in that fashion in the extremes of solar light / darkness. There will be an argument about angle and perspective incoming from others no doubt but for me, this does not make logical sense.

That said, I can understand through modern photography why the stars could not be realized from the surface of the moon but in that same argument, why is Armstrong so illuminated in what should be complete shadow?

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by FoosM

 

I can't understand those who still debate weather the moon has an atmosphere or not. I think there has been enough evidence collected to firmly attest to the moon having an atmosphere. That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

Where did the 1/6th figure originally came from?

reply to post by FoosM

Because your statement does not agree with the astronaut's description of being in shadow.
Nor the video/film that we see.

How can we see Armstrong on the film if he was in shadow? Oh wait! We've done this one before! Go back one page, please.

Originally posted by FoosM
Duress

en.wikipedia.org...

3 things actually. Threat, duress and coercion. All legal terms. Basically we have 3 astronaut/officers (2 of them Korean War fighter pilots, the 3rd born in Rome, Italy) bound by solemn oath to obey the orders of their superiors.

Can you imagine the conversation between Safire & HR Haldeman (found guilty of conspiracy & obstruction of justice) going like this....?

HRH: Bill, I need you to write something for the President in case Apollo 11 has a disaster on the moon...
WS: What kind of disaster were you thinking of? I'm a writer you know I need a few details.
HRH: Armstrong and Aldrin are trapped on the moon and can't get back to Earth...
WS: What about Collins then, does he make it?
(Nixon, who has tapped Safire's phones, breaks onto the line)
RMN: Forget about Collins, just go with my scenario, "THINK BIG", jesus christ Bill... you Jewish son of a bitch!
WS: But I'm not a Hollywood jew, I'm *your* jew, Dick
RMN: That's right now forget about Collins..
WS: Collins who? Who's Collins!
RMN & HRH: ...... maniacal laughter ....... Bob, ok that's a wrap. As they say in Hollywood ..... more maniacal laughter ....
HRH: He doesn't know?
RMN: I don't give a damn. Hollywood wants to beat the Russians as bad as I do... we scared them and they're doing great work with the Nazi lenses we scooped from the Swiss. Still can't trust the bastards.

^The above for amusement purposes only Although Nixon really did tap William Safire's phone and Haldeman really was a Watergate crook. And the Swiss really did scoop a Nazi surveillance camera in WW2. And Nixon did make a lot of anti-Semetic remarks privately.

Sources:
en.wikiquote.org...
en.wikisource.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Source en.wikipedia.org...

History looks a lot different when you set aside the Sacred Apollo Scriptures and begin researching the people surrounding the Apollo mythology during that time frame when NIXON was Commander-in-Chief.

reply to post by DJW001


Well, I will start you off with our friend Zorgon, I am sure you are familiar with him, please see this THREAD.

Perhaps you would prefer your information straight from NASA... In fact, Im sure you would because yours is a mind firmly grounded in MSM science DJ, so to that extent, Ill offer you something that I would be suprised you have not READ

As for the gravity, that is a long discussion, one that you must be sure you want to engage in because it will be time consuming and I am going to guess we already know the arguments for and against and will just be rehashing sources for the sake of seeming credible.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by FoosM

 

I can't understand those who still debate weather the moon has an atmosphere or not. I think there has been enough evidence collected to firmly attest to the moon having an atmosphere. That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

Where did the 1/6th figure originally came from?

Newton.

reply to post by Helious

Perhaps you would prefer your information straight from NASA... In fact, Im sure you would because yours is a mind firmly grounded in MSM science DJ, so to that extent, Ill offer you something that I would be suprised you have not READ

Speaking of READ, perhaps you should re-read my post:

Okay, I'll bite. What evidence do you have that the Moon has an "atmosphere." Not a tenuous, temporary "exosphere," but an atmosphere dense enough to affect the fall of a feather and call 1/6 gravity into question.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Helious
That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

Maybe that's why we are sending 2 "Holy" GRAIL probes to measure the moon's gravity next week for a 90~day mission. These probes will analyze the gravity down to the precision of a human blood cell. And then NASA is going to crash them into the moon!!

Great Job NASA, $375 Million.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What about Michael Collins then?

Michael Collins remained in the CSM and would be able to return to Earth. The speech was to cover an accident involving the actual landing.

Nixon's pre-written speech has a few problems with it. It assumes that Armstrong and Aldrin were alive but they "know that there is no hope for their recovery."

Why bother to write a speech at all? In the event of a real moon disaster it would take less than 5 minutes for a press secretary to whip up a genuine statement.

Sure, a simple "Stick a fork in 'em, they're done" would have sufficed. Weren't you just arguing that a cartoon was a carefully crafted propaganda vehicle using subtle visual tricks to intentionally cause cognitive dissonance, but now you believe that Will Saffire could knock off a crucial speech in five minutes?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

Perhaps you would prefer your information straight from NASA... In fact, Im sure you would because yours is a mind firmly grounded in MSM science DJ, so to that extent, Ill offer you something that I would be suprised you have not READ

Speaking of READ, perhaps you should re-read my post:

Okay, I'll bite. What evidence do you have that the Moon has an "atmosphere." Not a tenuous, temporary "exosphere," but an atmosphere dense enough to affect the fall of a feather and call 1/6 gravity into question.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no such thing as a "tenuous temporary exosphere" this is a made up term as it does not occur in other observations within our means. Please demonstrate one other example of that in our known solar system.

That being said, please demonstrate one other known moon of any planet in our solar system that shares the same properties as our moon. Those precisely being, the exact distance from the earth needed to provide a perfect solar eclipse, the rotational speed to exactly match the orbit of the earth to blind us from one side completely. I won't bring up the size, nor the properties that NASA itself has proclaimed as I am very sure you are already aware.

With everything you know, and I know you are a smart man, can you say with a straight face that what we know about the moon, even in the main stream is not at the very least, a tiny bit strange?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Helious
That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

Maybe that's why we are sending 2 "Holy" GRAIL probes to measure the moon's gravity next week for a 90~day mission. These probes will analyze the gravity down to the precision of a human blood cell. And then NASA is going to crash them into the moon!!

Great Job NASA,

$375 Million.

edit on 9/6/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Yeah, you would think, after all this time they would at least be able to send probes to and fro from the moon.
Collecting samples, taking pictures, making measurements and sending it back. At least then I would say the US was mastering return flights off the moon. Till this day, the only claim that NASA can do this Apollo. Other than that, there is no evidence that NASA has the knowhow to bring objects back to Earth after landing them on the moon.

And didnt those probes from the 60's measure the gravity of the moon prior to landing men? Wouldn't that be a necessary objective?

Originally posted by DJW001now you believe that Will Saffire could knock off a crucial speech in five minutes?

Yes, I believe William Safire (who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's top honor, other honorees include George Tenet, who knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq and Gen. Myers who failed in his duty protect the USA on 9-11) could knock off a statement in 5 minutes.

It would not be a crucial speech, as you put it. It was a 1 page memo, an announcement. Any hack writer could handle it in 5 minutes. William Safire could probably do it in 4.

reply to post by Helious

There is no such thing as a "tenuous temporary exosphere" this is a made up term as it does not occur in other observations within our means.

Right about now, you might be thinking to yourself: "Hold on a second. I thought the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere!" And you would be almost correct. The Moon's "atmosphere" is so tenuous that it's technically considered an exosphere, not an atmosphere.

"tenuous... exosphere."

And the weirdness of the exosphere doesn't stop there. During the lunar night, the Moon's exosphere mostly falls to the ground. (Just imagine if our atmosphere fell to the ground at night!) When sunlight returns, the solar wind kicks up new particles to replenish the exosphere.

Sure sounds "temporary" to me.
Your own source.

That being said, please demonstrate one other known moon of any planet in our solar system that shares the same properties as our moon. Those precisely being, the exact distance from the earth needed to provide a perfect solar eclipse, the rotational speed to exactly match the orbit of the earth to blind us from one side completely.

How does this affect the materiality of the lunar landings?

Originally posted by DJW001

And the weirdness of the exosphere doesn't stop there. During the lunar night, the Moon's exosphere mostly falls to the ground. (Just imagine if our atmosphere fell to the ground at night!) When sunlight returns, the solar wind kicks up new particles to replenish the exosphere.

So the moon has "wind" or "currents"?
Is that why the flag moved?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

There is no such thing as a "tenuous temporary exosphere" this is a made up term as it does not occur in other observations within our means.

Right about now, you might be thinking to yourself: "Hold on a second. I thought the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere!" And you would be almost correct. The Moon's "atmosphere" is so tenuous that it's technically considered an exosphere, not an atmosphere.

"tenuous... exosphere."

And the weirdness of the exosphere doesn't stop there. During the lunar night, the Moon's exosphere mostly falls to the ground. (Just imagine if our atmosphere fell to the ground at night!) When sunlight returns, the solar wind kicks up new particles to replenish the exosphere.

Sure sounds "temporary" to me.
Your own source.

That being said, please demonstrate one other known moon of any planet in our solar system that shares the same properties as our moon. Those precisely being, the exact distance from the earth needed to provide a perfect solar eclipse, the rotational speed to exactly match the orbit of the earth to blind us from one side completely.

How does this affect the materiality of the lunar landings?

Please show any other example in our solar system (Which are ALOT) that display any other similarities to our moon such as a tenuous temporary exosphere.

Originally posted by FoosM

And didnt those probes from the 60's measure the gravity of the moon prior to landing men? Wouldn't that be a necessary objective?

US sent x number of probes to the moon. Russian sent x number of probes to the moon. Russia was putting remotely controlled lunar rovers on the moon 40 years ago!!!!!!! Apparently *nobody* in the last 40 years has measured moon gravity well enough for NASA's purposes. Hence the redundant 2011 GRAIL mission.

Just as a note, the $375 Million dollar crash probes should be crashing into the moon late December 2011, along with the 10 crash cameras. This does not strike me as a scientific mission at all.

The DoD could simply take over the mission any time they want for national security purposes. The DoD could then lie, as they lied about Gulf of Tonkin, tell us that the probes crashed into the moon as planned. While the mission continues under a blanket of black budget bureaucracy and bullsh*t.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Just as a note, the $375 Million dollar crash probes should be crashing into the moon late December 2011, along with the 10 crash cameras. This does not strike me as a scientific mission at all.

The DoD could simply take over the mission any time they want for national security purposes. The DoD could then lie, as they lied about Gulf of Tonkin, tell us that the probes crashed into the moon as planned. While the mission continues under a blanket of black budget bureaucracy and bullsh*t.

Do you think there is a secret off world war going on?
Are we bombing peaceful moon creatures like we are dropping love bombs on civilians here on Earth?

reply to post by Helious

Please show any other example in our solar system (Which are ALOT) that display any other similarities to our moon such as a tenuous temporary exosphere.

Mercury is surrounded by a tenuous exosphere that is supplied primarily by the planet’s surface materials and is known to contain sodium, potassium, and calcium. Observations by the Mercury Atmospheric and Surface Composition Spectrometer during MESSENGER’s second Mercury flyby revealed the presence of neutral magnesium in the tail (anti-sunward) region of the exosphere, as well as differing spatial distributions of magnesium, calcium, and sodium atoms in both the tail and the nightside, near-planet exosphere. Analysis of these observations, supplemented by observations during the first Mercury flyby, as well as those by other MESSENGER instruments, suggests that the distinct spatial distributions arise from a combination of differences in source, transfer, and loss processes.

www.sciencemag.org...

In addition, the coma of a comet would be an exosphere, as it is the result of the interaction between solar radiation and the comet's solid nucleus. These exospheres are extremely temporary as they form as the comet passes the asteroid belt on the inward leg and disappear at about the same point on the outward leg. Now, please explain why this is relevant to Apollo, which actually observed the Moon's exosphere.