Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Facefirst


But those pictures aren't clear enough, they'll say.
Yet, those NASA pictures from 40 years ago are plenty good for shadow analysis and such.
It wouldn't matter if you took them by the scruff of the neck and rubbed their noses in moon dust.
There is faith involved, and you just can't argue with a man's faith.

Originally posted by FoosM
Well then, the issue of not going to the moon was not about money, was it?

I mistyped. I should have said partially funded. Since not all the hardware was completed or launched into space.

But money was one of the issues for the cancellation the last three missions. They were already facing budget cuts by 1970. There's no denying that the Apollo missions were expensive. The final cost for the whole program was approximately $136 billion (in 2007 dollars).

Originally posted by FoosM
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.

You mean this?

109:27:13 Armstrong: Okay. It's quite dark here in the shadow and a little hard for me to see that I have good footing. I'll work my way over into the sunlight here without looking directly into the Sun.

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "It is very easy to see in the shadows after you adapt for a little while. When you first come down the ladder, you're in the shadow. You can see everything perfectly; the LM and things on the ground. When you walk out into the sunlight and then back into the shadow, it takes a while to adapt."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "In the first part of the shadow, when you first move from the sunlight into the shadow, when the Sun is still shining on the helmet as you traverse cross-Sun, you've got this reflection in your face. At this point, it's just about impossible to see anything in the shadow. As soon as you get your helmet into the shadow, you can begin to perceive things and to go through a dark-adaptation process. Continually moving back and forth from sunlight into shadow should be avoided, because it's going to cost you some time in perception ability."]

Originally posted by FoosM
Why would they bother planting the flag for a secret mission?

Anybody see the film? Curious to what people thought of the special effects.

The other question I have, and I may have asked this before.
Besides Apollo 13, is there any other film, as in motion picture, or video of
the astronauts in the LM?

I saw Apollo 18 the other night. I wasn't impressed by the script but the overall scenario was good (top secret DoD mission, they find a soviet lander and dead cosmonaut, astros trapped on the moon, can't get back, DoD leaves them to die). Special effects were hit or miss. The pretense of "found footage" is an excuse for bad cinematography with the "old movie" effect layered on top. Such a pity. Some of the models looked ok, eg, the soviet lander and the lunar lander, they did some driving in the rover, etc. Not too bad.

There is barely any Apollo techno-jargon so tech heads will be greatly disappointed. The actors did a decent job although they didn't convince me that they were pilots or astronauts (poor script again). I recommend it to anyone interested in Apollo. In the end I did not watch it as a horror film because it's horrible script just sucks. I watched it as a comedy!


oh yeah, they'd placed a flag because the astros still believed this was part of the mission; the mission was to set up multiple camera sights with a new westinghouse design; unfortunately for them, the aliens don't like visitors! the DoD takes over the mission and flat out tells them "we won't try to save you".

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Nixon had an ulterior motive for typing up that speech with the very specific scenario.

Assertion without evidence.

Also, it's a prepared backup speech, not the prepared speech. Your own link says so. They were covering their bases.

I can carry an organ donor card in my wallet, but that doesn't mean I plan on getting hit by a car.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You're evading, SJ.

edit on 2011/9/6 by 000063 because: (no reason given)

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

At one time in this thread we looked at the provenance and the custodial aspects of the Apollo 11 moon rocks. We found that these moon rocks were whisked off the carrier in two different jets and flown to a specific AFB. We also looked at NASA's attempts to inventory the moon rocks early on. NASA determined, by itself, several years later, that the initial inventories were unsatisfactory and commissioned a second report on the moon rock inventories. Another level of evasion.

We also looked at the possibility that some moon rocks had been contaminated. Take a look at page 433, for example.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Well then, the issue of not going to the moon was not about money, was it?

I mistyped. I should have said partially funded. Since not all the hardware was completed or launched into space.

But money was one of the issues for the cancellation the last three missions. They were already facing budget cuts by 1970. There's no denying that the Apollo missions were expensive. The final cost for the whole program was approximately $136 billion (in 2007 dollars).

$136 Billion dollars and they could not find even a few dollars to save the original Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes. From a scientific standpoint those tapes would be as valuable as the moon rocks themselves because they could have been copied, examined, and learned from.

What kind of organization makes an *exceptional* claim (e.g. landing on the moon) and then hides/loses/ or destroys a primary source of evidence? A secret organization... within NASA itself... with fraudulent goals and fraudulent agents embedded within. See Iran-Contra.

The excuses made by Apollo cheerleaders with regard to the criminal mishandling of primary Apollo 11 source material maintain that 'budgetary restraints' may have forced the space agency to reutilze the tapes for other more important projects. This, in and of itself, is a very *exceptional* claim.

Now we have not o n e , but t w o *exceptional* claims.
$136 Billion dollars means that money was no object and money was of no consideration. There really is no reason to believe the budget argument.

NASA has officially white washed and made up excuses about the destruction of Apollo 11 telemetry tapes which is eerily similar to what the BBC claims about it's 9-11 tapes. "Cock up, not conspiracy."

The Apollo 11 missing tapes are missing slow-scan television (SSTV) recordings of the lunar transmissions broadcast during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, which was the first time human beings walked on the Moon. The tapes carried SSTV and telemetry data recorded onto analog data recording tape.

The Truth Is Out There.

5. The documentation history for this Accession indicates that large quantities of tapes were continually being added to Accession #69A4099 during the period Apollo was active, and Goddard was continually requesting return of many of these tapes for evaluation during the same time period. At one point this Accession contained over 700 boxes of tapes that were in storage at the National Archive which could have been Apollo related telemetry data (on the order of 3500 tape reels). The National Records Center Documented History with regard to this Accession also shows that all of the tape boxes included in this Accession, were returned to Goddard by 1984 for permanent retention by Goddard.

6. Based on the pattern of information that I was able to ascertain from sampling the numerous other tape Accessions, it is my firm belief that Accession #69A4099 was indeed the Accession that was used to store all of the Apollo mission telemetry data tapes including the Apollo 11 tapes.

7. A subsequent search by Goddard found no record of Goddard having received these tapes back from the National Archives, nor any record of disposition of these tapes or any reference to the subject Accession. However, the National Record Center at the National Archives has formal records that attest to the fact that all of the many hundreds of tape boxes which had been listed in Accession #69A4099 had been returned to Goddard at Goddard's request for permanent retention. Source www.honeysucklecreek.net...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

All of Shakespeare's original manuscripts were eventually used to wrap buns or start fires. What's your point?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

$136 Billion dollars and they could not find even a few dollars to save the original Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes. From a scientific standpoint those tapes would be as valuable as the moon rocks themselves because they could have been copied, examined, and learned from.

Be specific. What could they have learned from the telemetry tapes? Whether or not a particular exploding bolt was armed at a particular time? You do know what telemetry is, don't you? It's the hundreds of different signals sent back by every system on the spacecraft. If there were an accident, these records would be useful for determining what went wrong. The only telemetry they really needed to keep was the medical telemetry.

What kind of organization makes an *exceptional* claim (e.g. landing on the moon) and then hides/loses/ or destroys a primary source of evidence? A secret organization... within NASA itself... with fraudulent goals and fraudulent agents embedded within. See Iran-Contra.

What kind of secret organization broadcasts its doings live? Incidentally, thank you for the gratuitous Iran-Contra reference, it makes a nice change from Gulf of Tonkin.

The excuses made by Apollo cheerleaders with regard to the criminal mishandling of primary Apollo 11 source material maintain that 'budgetary restraints' may have forced the space agency to reutilze the tapes for other more important projects. This, in and of itself, is a very *exceptional* claim.

Note how the Moon Hoax propagandists use the same charged language over and over again. "Criminal" and "exceptional." American exceptionalism is criminal. Gulf of Tonkin. Tricky Dick. All buzz words designed to brainwash people into believing that anything an American does is evil. Too bad the attempt is so clumsy that only people already inclined to reject the historical record find it persuasive. From now on, every time you say "Gulf of Tonkin" I'm going to say "Marshall Plan."

So no-one thought that saving cardboard boxes full of clumsy tapes that could only be played on a handful of specialized machines was important. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one machine left that could play these tapes if they were found, and that was patched together from spare parts to retrieve the Lunar Orbiter data. In 1972 they honestly had no idea how far data processing would advance in the coming decades. They didn't even have pocket calculators back then.

What is criminal is when one distorts honest behavior in order to score a cheap political point. As I mentioned earlier, Shakespeare's manuscripts have been forever lost because 400 tears ago they were just scraps of paper. Why not use them to start fires or wrap buns? It was practical. The people who did that were not evil or even stupid. If you wanted to read Hamlet you had three or four neatly printed versions you could buy that were much easier to read.

reply to post by DJW001


are you really comparing 400 year old documents to 40 year old tapes...really....and next you will say it was too expensive to make players for these types of tape made for no less than a manned moon mission...omg really...so the one time we land on the moon and film it we have no real reason to bother keeping the film....hmmmph..i can just see those nasa guys sitting round and rolling up doobies out that old useless tape....

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by FoosM

 

Nothing will be good enough. I've come to accept that from the hoax mindset.

The photos seem to be impressing the scientific community but then again, what do scientists know?

Whats so impressive and conclusive about these new photos?
Please tell me.

If scientists are impressed by this, then I can understand why civilization is crumbling all around us.

So what, prey tell, will be good enough for you?

I know the answer, i'd just like you to say it.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

are you really comparing 400 year old documents to 40 year old tapes

Yes, that is precisely what I am doing. Four hundred years ago, Shakespeare's manuscripts were brand new. Once they were transferred to a better medium (print) there was no reason not to use them to polish your boots. Forty years ago, the telemetry tapes had their uses, but once the data had been transferred to better media (medical and engineering charts or broadcast compatible audio and video formats) they were just spools of tape. No reason not to tape over them, like an old cassette of "Xanadu." Remember, back in 1969 people didn't even have VCRs in their homes and television networks still didn't have the hang of tape. The BBC taped over entire series of "Doctor Who!"

..so the one time we land on the moon and film it we have no real reason to bother keeping the film.

We still have the film. It is stored in nitrogen gas in special refrigerators to prevent chemical degradation.

565 pages of uselessness.

Photo 'dispels Moon landing conspiracy theory'

BBC story

The " Moon Hoaxers" now belong in their own "bunk" beds.

Originally posted by DJW001

The BBC taped over entire series of "Doctor Who!"

The 6th season second episode of Doctor Who ( featuring the 11th Doctor and Amy Pond ) revisits the events of Apollo 11 in "Day of the Moon" and a novel featuring the same pair explores the secret of "Apollo 23".

For clarification the Doctor Who tapes that were taped over were not transferred to other media first and such copies as could be rescued were found here and there in odd places ( usually as fragments ). The scripts however survived.

Originally posted by DJW001 In 1972 they honestly had no idea how far data processing would advance in the coming decades. They didn't even have pocket calculators back then.

With this statement you looked back at 1972 (with all the advantages of 20/20 hindsight) and boldy tell try to sell us that NASA didn't know how far data processing would advance. Surely you must be joking.

Moore's original statement that transistor counts had doubled every year can be found in his publication "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", Electronics Magazine 19 April 1965:

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer. Source en.wikipedia.org...'s_law

This is sure to stir the pot some:

Moon To Have No-Fly Zones By Month's End:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
This is sure to stir the pot some:

Moon To Have No-Fly Zones By Month's End:

Is the only source for this the Hindu Times? I can't find any other link that doesn't reference the Hindu Times for this no fly zone for the Moon. It sounds like nonsense to me. I can't imaging rocket exhaust or dust doing a whole lot to any of the historical sites. It can't be any worse than all the natural things they're already exposed to. The long exposure to radiation, the temperature extremes, micro meteorites, etc.

I don't buy this story. It sounds like a joke.

reply to post by jra


Science magazine is mentioned as being the source.

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by FoosM

 

Nothing will be good enough. I've come to accept that from the hoax mindset.

The photos seem to be impressing the scientific community but then again, what do scientists know?

Whats so impressive and conclusive about these new photos?
Please tell me.

If scientists are impressed by this, then I can understand why civilization is crumbling all around us.

So what, prey tell, will be good enough for you?

I know the answer, i'd just like you to say it.

why dont you explain how these new photos are conclusive evidence.
Are these photos beyond the technology of fakery?

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
reply to post by jra

 

Science magazine is mentioned as being the source.

link

Science 2 September 2011:
Vol. 333 no. 6047 pp. 1207-1208
DOI: 10.1126/science.333.6047.1207
NEWS & ANALYSIS
SPACE
NASA to Launch Guidelines to Protect Lunar Artifacts
Lucas Laursen*
As dozens of private teams race to return to the moon as soon as next year, spurred on by $30 million in prize money from Google and the X Prize Foundation, NASA is wrestling with how to safeguard the historic and scientific value of more than three dozen sites containing remnants of America's golden era of space exploration, including the spot where Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr. left the first footprints on the lunar surface. Later this month, the agency plans to issue what it calls "recommendations" for spacecraft, or future astronauts, visiting U.S. government property on the moon.

Oh lord, all dat monies and teh science aint no good...

Whipping around the moon in the solar system’s loneliest spaceship, Apollo 8 astronaut James Lovell saw something in 1968 that he shouldn’t have: a gentle illumination, like a sunrise or sunset on Earth, hovered where the sun’s light cast its sharp shadow on the moon’s surface. Yet the moon has no atmosphere to catch the sun’s rays and create such a spectacle.

Other astronauts and photos from Surveyor moon landers confirmed the horizon glow. So scientists hypothesized that lunar dust was picking up enough of an electric charge from cosmic rays or the solar wind to drive it tens of kilometers into the otherwise vacant lunar sky and cause the light show. A particle monitoring instrument, the Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites (LEAM) experiment, placed on the moon 4 years later seemed to provide corroborating data.

But now a former Apollo physicist is threatening to take the glow off this explanation. Brian O’Brien, who helped design dust monitors for Apollo 11, 12, 14, and 15, argues in a review published online recently by Planetary and Space Science that much of the LEAM data were not detections of charged lunar dust particles but instead electrical interference generated by the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) instruments parked 7.5 meters away from LEAM.

That claim has roused other Apollo scientists and engineers out of retirement. “I’m amazed that Planetary and Space Science accepted Brian’s paper,” says Lynn Lewis, the ALSEP systems manager and chair of a group trying to find missing data from the package.

And I thought we learned all we can from those missions...

The nostalgic dustup comes as NASA prepares for the 2013 launch of the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE), a lunar satellite whose instruments could resolve whether such charged particles exist and how they move above the moon. Many of the participants will face off at next month’s 4th NASA Lunar Science Forum at Ames Research Park in California.

Lunar dust, and dust on other rocky planets and asteroids, is important to space exploration for several reasons. Researchers who count craters on airless, waterless bodies or analyze the chemistry of their rocky surfaces to try to estimate their age and composition need to know how much dust is flying around to calibrate measurements, says physicist Eberhard Grün of the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, and the University of Colorado, Boulder. Dust creates practical problems, too. Surveyor 3, a robotic lander sent to the moon in 1967, showed signs of serious dust abrasion when it was collected 2 years later by Apollo 12 astronauts. Dust also darkened the moon explorers’ suits, heating them beyond the cooling systems’ capacity, and the particles’ sharp, glassy edges caused leaks in the suits.

Whaaaat ???

NASA designed the LEAM experiment, installed near the Apollo 17 landing site in December 1972, to detect a predicted continual rain of fast-moving micrometeorites and the fine lunar dust they kicked up upon impact. Yet LEAM recorded the most activity at lunar sunrise or sunset. The types of events recorded were odd as well: They saturated the instrument’s sensors and lasted longer than they should have if caused by fast interplanetary particles.

Lunar scientists later concluded that LEAM was seeing slow-moving charged dust particles close to the ground. Perhaps as sunlight struck the moon and charged some dust particles but not neighboring ones still in the shade, the difference in electrical charges would drag lighter particles around the surface or even into the sky, they hypothesized. If such particles also floated kilometers higher, then the LEAM data might support the idea that the horizon glow was lunar dust.

But in his new paper, O’Brien, who was at Rice University in Houston, Texas, at the time of the Apollo missions, questions whether the LEAM data represent dust. For example, he says that too many of the unexpected signals arrive in well-ordered bursts to be from slow-moving, charged dust. He also points to reports of electrical interference in preflight laboratory tests of the instrument. Instead, O’Brien writes, the signals captured by LEAM occurred when ALSEP turned on or off the electricity for the heaters it needed to survive the lunar nights.

Why is this coming out 40 years later?

lucaslaursen.com...