Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

He completely contradicts all those Apollogists, Propagandists, or what have you, that claim that the Apollo footage looks so authentic, more real than modern special effects. LOL.

Have you ever seen a film or video of yourself doing something extraordinary? It can take on a surreal air. "I couldn't possibly have done that.... Do I really look like that..?"

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

You're starting to sound a tad egotistical IMO..

I, on the other hand, am genuinely asking them which of their many red herrings they want me to respond to.

LOL


Why dont you first identify our red herrings and explain why you think they are red herrings?

There's one!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063

 

He's saying that NASA could've landed the landers remotely.
Which is odd, because there is over a second's tape-delay from Earth. Three seconds or so round-trip. To put this in perspective, NASA did some experiments with a remote control plane in the 80s. It crashed. Imagine trying to drive a car at a precise speed and angle over a spot on the road, with a three-second lag. Flying a plane is harder than that. The lander would be, literally, rocket science.
Yeah.
reply to post by backinblack

USSR bought back moon rocks by probe. Much, much, less than NASA's mind you.
Also, the moon rocks have several features that simply cannot be found or simulated on Earth. Full stop.

Are you on drugs??
Firstly you argue that NASA could not have auto landed on the moon due to the time lag and then you go on to tell us how the USSR did EXACTLY that to bring back moon rocks..

Which is it mate??
Can it be done automatically or not.

I said "the lander". Flying a lander would be quite different from flying a probe. For one thing, it's a lot larger and heavier. In addition to difficulty, there's the live radio signals confirmed by multiple independent sources. Then you have to switch out the "real" lander with one modified to fly by remote control/land automatically, or secretly modify it somehow.. Then you have to hope the guys who modified it never squeal. Then you have to make sure the guys who make sure the guys who modified it never squeal never squeal. The actual probes land automatically, not by remote.

BTW, have any scientists examined both the USSR and US samples for a comparison.??

Yes. The USSR. They confirmed it. And, no, the USSR is not going to value a few hundred million in wheat over a multi-billion-ruble space program.

Also, what's so special in moon rocks that can't be found on earth??

Micrometeorite scarring, among other things.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063
SJ and FoosM are using their patented spamming tactic, I see. Lovely.

Wrong. We are providing the hard facts which you ultimately ignored.

No, you're not. In fact, you're still avoiding the question I asked you.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I don't know.
But I do know that whenever I look at Saturn through a telescope it looks fake.
You already posted that. What's your point?

edit on 9/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My point is when I look at Apollo through the lens of 20/20 history it looks fake.

I saw something that looked exactly like fruit once.

Turned out it was marzipan.

Originally posted by 000063

BTW, have any scientists examined both the USSR and US samples for a comparison.??

Yes. The USSR. They confirmed it. And, no, the USSR is not going to value a few hundred million in wheat over a multi-billion-ruble space program.

I think the general population of the USSR would have rather had food in their bellies than a few men is space.

Also, what's so special in moon rocks that can't be found on earth??

Micrometeorite scarring, among other things.

edit on 2011/9/26 by 000063 because: +

Which they had the technology to fake.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

My point is when I look at Apollo through the lens of 20/20 history it looks fake.

Perhaps the problem is that you are looking at it entirely through secondary sources. You were not alive at the time so you did not experience it first hand. Incidentally, you are not looking at it through "20/20 history," you are looking at it through the haze of your own preconceived beliefs.

Pete Conrad said the film looked fake, the film looked unreal. See the press conference quote that I transcribed.
There is a New Space Race to the Moon. See the NLSI slide that I uploaded.
NASA declared a Keepout Zone on the moon. See NASA's own documents.
A former Marine Corps Major General ex-astronaut Charles Bolden is running NASA. See Bolden's wikipedia page he was the commander of a "no-fly-zone" mission in the middle east.
Apollo 12 historian Richard Godwin stated that the DoD has always funded NASA and he lists out Gemini, Redstone, Titan, Saturn and the Shuttle. See the interview quote that I transcribed.
$400 million dollar GRAIL mission has a 90 day science schedule before it will be crashed on the moon like so many other glorious NASA science projects before. See NASA's own documents.

These are not pre-conceived beliefs. This is the military industrial complex hard at work covering up for the biggest HOAX of the 20th century which, not inconveniently, coincided with a very large scale military action in S.E. Asia, which was predicated on a treasonous falsehood, ie, the Gulf of Tonkin. And need I remind that all the Apollo Moon landings took place under one American President?

The Apollo Sacred Scriptures are essentially written as dogma... dictated by popes, preached by priests, evangelized by "witnesses", defended by Apollogists, well-meaning lay-men and ignorant sheeple. I am very, very, very glad not to be a member of the Mythological Apollo Orthodox Church.

Come over to the side of skepticism, DJW, even for one day, just look at these things from outside the perspective of NASA. Break out of your locked mental cage and think! Jarrah White is showing you the right way to think about Apollo

Originally posted by FoosM
It would be nice if you could at least look at JW's video regarding Big Muley and explain how you think it can be debunked. Or show where JW is wrong.

all he is doing is saying he doesn't belive NASA's explanations, he doesn't provide his own explanation, so what is there to debunk ? it's just conspiracy 101 stuff, and really not even compelling. My point still stands, the only person to claim the rocks are fake are guys on the internet

do you have any credible sources corroborating his position ?

otherwise muley is still proof of the apollo missions

lets flip the tables.

specifically how was the hoax accomplished ?

I'm hoping someone will take this seriously and not just link a book or a youtube video

lets break it down to 4 basic categories

the mirror placement for the laser program with no US rover program at the time
the ham radio operators needing to aim at the moon to get signals
the rocks being examined by thousands of labs with not 1 report questioning authenticity
the astronauts go up in a saturn rocket, and return in a command module
the TV footage


lets start with the mirrors. how did they get there ? please be as specific as possible, for example if you're going with a rover theory, I'd like dates the rover was launched, location of the launch, who built it and where, any pics of it, more or less an actual theory of how the hoax was accomplished

It was impossible for anyone to go on the moon at that time, We have more technology today in a desktop computer then they did then. No one went on the moon.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

lets start with the mirrors. how did they get there ? please be as specific as possible, for example if you're going with a rover theory, I'd like dates the rover was launched, location of the launch, who built it and where, any pics of it, more or less an actual theory of how the hoax was accomplished

1. Mirrors not needed to bounce lasers off the moon
2. Impossible to know what was sent to the moon because of secret space missions.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by FoosM
It would be nice if you could at least look at JW's video regarding Big Muley and explain how you think it can be debunked. Or show where JW is wrong.

all he is doing is saying he doesn't belive NASA's explanations,

You didnt watch the video series.

Originally posted by FoosM
2. Impossible to know what was sent to the moon because of secret space missions.

For reasons of national security which are known only to those who operate in the abyss of black budget programs.

That's how the LRV could be " developed in only 17 months and yet performed all its functions on the Moon with no major anomalies."

[Irwin - "We never really drove the real vehicle on the Earth because you couldn't. If you sat on it, it would collapse. Charlie Duke was the one who was following the development of the Rover."]

" The original cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing (with Delco as a major sub-contractor) was for $19 million and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971, but cost overruns led to a final cost of $38 million. "

1 April 1971 ??..... April Fools! All tested & approved by NASA before the launch of Apollo 15 on July 26, 1971.

My understanding was that all these components were thouroughly planned, designed, tested, field tested, etc. Why did wait they until late 1968 to start a 17-month development process for the LRV ?

Jarrah White has received the endorsement of Joe Rogan.
moonfaker.com...

reply to post by syrinx high priest


I'll give one more to that list. How was the video and photos faked? How was the 1/6th gravity simulated perfectly on all objects? They cant give up any reasonable answer within reality to that so they go for the "unicorns did it" answer.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

I'll give one more to that list. How was the video and photos faked?

What was there to fake? I asked this question before, what specifically occurred in the videos that could not be faked? And what do you finds astonishing about the photos, besides believing that they were taken on the moon?

How was the 1/6th gravity simulated perfectly on all objects?

It wasnt, Ive shown in several posts that objects thrown, didnt travel long distances as were described by the astronauts "miles and miles and miles".

They cant give up any reasonable answer within reality to that so they go for the "unicorns did it" answer.

Well thats basically NASA's take on it.
They landed men on the moon with US magic and plenty of drugs.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
lets break it down to 4 basic categories

the mirror placement for the laser program with no US rover program at the time
the ham radio operators needing to aim at the moon to get signals
the rocks being examined by thousands of labs with not 1 report questioning authenticity
the astronauts go up in a saturn rocket, and return in a command module
the TV footage


lets start with the mirrors. how did they get there ? please be as specific as possible, for example if you're going with a rover theory, I'd like dates the rover was launched, location of the launch, who built it and where, any pics of it, more or less an actual theory of how the hoax was accomplished

I'll give it a shot syrinx...

Which mirror? A11, A14, A15 or A17? If it's possible for the unmanned Lunakhod lander to deploy a lazer reflector then it is theoretically possible for any unmanned Apollo LM to deploy the LRRR, either automatically or by remote control.

Like FoosM mentioned we only have access to the information that is made publicly available (information approved for public release.) We don't know how many secret DoD moon missions were launched, we don't know the dates of the secret DoD missions, and we don't know where from. The only people who know would be those who had a NEED to KNOW. Everybody knows the DoD classification system works like that.

Other Apollo investigators may have different ideas about the LRRR's.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


That's how the LRV could be " developed in only 17 months and yet performed all its functions on the Moon with no major anomalies."

[Irwin - "We never really drove the real vehicle on the Earth because you couldn't. If you sat on it, it would collapse. Charlie Duke was the one who was following the development of the Rover."]

What? 17 months? And it wasn't field tested? They didnt actually drive in the real thing?

So this is not even the real thing:


This must just be then a publicity stunt.



One thing you can say, that if the moon landings were real, then the tax payers got their money's worth.
Landing 6 teams in 11 years. Now, NASA has been preparing to go back, doing all the research, building equipment, but they haven't even sent one person outside of LEO. Where is the outrage?

reply to post by FoosM


Riiiiight... 17 months for $38 million. All of these missions were deeply planned and very tightly scheduled to meet the deadline. That's why I have a hard time buying it.

Then, somebody proposes a rover in 1968? Like magic, 17 months later, that rover is on the Moon. And the astros are driving like m*****f****** raging rednecks across the moon in living color!

I'm sure the Apollogists can dig up some interesting facts about the decision to build the rover and the decision to attach it to the untested lunar landers... after only 17 mo development period? Look how many potential problems could go wrong with that LRV attached to the LM.

Did Boeing get $38 million for 1 rover? Or was that total cost for the 4 or 5 they had built? IDK. It was 1968. Obviously the NASA engineers of the 1960's were far more intelligent than all of the NASA engineers today.

The Apollo 15 astros Scott, Worden and Irwin each brought with them undeclared contraband... these were in the form of hundreds of post covers that were not declared on the flight manifests or the PPK's.

Here is one of Al Worden's postal covers that got him in trouble with NASA and Chris Kraft.


It is unclear to me after listening to Al's story at alworden.com if these post covers remained in the CM for the full duration of the flight or .. possibly ... some of the post covers might have been transferred to the poorly shielded LEM.

In either case, NASA wanted these post covers baaaad and Al Worden handed them over. The post covers remained in the custody of the Nat'l Archives for a time. Worden had to file suit to get them returned. He eventually got them back. Now he's selling them on the internet at alworden.com.