Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA is lying. DoD is pulling the strings.

Complete non sequiter.

reply to post by FoosM

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

Irrelevant.

...So he found another solution: starvation. Now, 75 years after one of the great forgotten crimes of modern times, Stalin's man-made famine of 1932/3, the former Soviet republic of Ukraine is asking the world to classify it as a genocide.The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor - the Hunger.

Millions starved as Soviet troops and secret policemen raided their villages, stole the harvest and all the food in villagers' homes.They dropped dead in the streets, lay dying and rotting in their houses, and some women became so desperate for food that they ate their own children. If they managed to fend off starvation, they were deported and shot in their hundreds of thousands.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Ah, those were the days, eh Sayanara?

reply to post by StevenQ

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.

It was impossible for anyone to discover America in the Middle Ages. We have more technology today in a desktop computer than they did then. No one discovered America.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack

 

I think it's YOUR objectivity that needs looking at mate..

I'm not the one pretending to be unbiased.

Please show me where I've been biased..

I actually called out SJ only a few pages ago for making conflicting posts..

Have you ever done that to your mates???

Your FAKE argument is a joke and deserves pointing out for what it is..
How doing that shows me as being biased is beyond belief..

reply to post by FoosM

1. Mirrors not needed to bounce lasers off the moon

No, but it is instantly possible to tell whether a laser is bouncing off of the lunar surface, which has a low albedo, or a mirror, which is very, very shiny.

2. Impossible to know what was sent to the moon because of secret space missions.

Argument from ignorance. There were several highly public missions to the Moon. You have yet to prove they didn't happen. When you have done that, you can speculate about missions for which there is no evidence.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

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

Ya think???
I didn't see much dust getting thrown any higher than you'd expect here on earth.
Ever seen a dune buggy7 kick up sand in the desert?
I expected much higher from the Rover.
Six times higher is an awful lot and I didn't see it with the Rover OR astronauts..
Got any film to show different??

Hey DJW, try answering this one..
Show me some video where we see dust flying 6 times higher than on Earth..
In fact, show me where ANYTHING filmed on the moon goes 6 times higher than on earth..

This will be fun..

reply to post by backinblack

Show me some video where we see dust flying 6 times higher than on Earth..
In fact, show me where ANYTHING filmed on the moon goes 6 times higher than on earth..

This will be fun.

Have fun!





Now, put on a 60 kilo backpack and see how high you can jump flat-footed.

reply to post by DJW001


But DJ.......THE WIRES, THE WIRES....

First video is great actually. Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by DJW001

Interesting, so I noticed when the astronaut flicked the bag in the air, we only saw the shadow of the bag
on its way down. Then the maker of the video also only pointed out the shadow (2:00) of the bag on its way down.
Where is the shadow of the bag on its way up?

reply to post by FoosM


You can clearly see that the shadow only appears on screen when the bag is falling. the camera angle doesnt show the shadow as it was going up. Once again just because you dont see it it doesnt mean its not there.

Originally posted by DJW001 There were several highly public missions to the Moon. You have yet to prove they didn't happen. When you have done that, you can speculate about missions for which there is no evidence.

A rocket launch witnesses by millions is still a rocket launch. A TV show on the "moon landings" watched by millions is still a TV show.
Now if you can produce the telemetry tapes which matches exactly your scriptural texts (the ALSJ, et al) then we could have better confidence in the claim that a rocket launch = a moon landing. Until then there is a huge empty space in the logical sequence of events.

Originally posted by hateeternal
reply to post by FoosM

 

You can clearly see that the shadow only appears on screen when the bag is falling. the camera angle doesnt show the shadow as it was going up.
Once again just because you dont see it it doesnt mean its not there.

edit on 27-9-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)

Yes, thats what I said.
But now what about the camera angle stops the shadow from showing up on the way up?
Once again, apparent special effects issues right in your face, and you dont even acknowledge it.
Only because somebody told you that this was filmed on the moon, LOL.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by hateeternal
reply to post by FoosM

 

You can clearly see that the shadow only appears on screen when the bag is falling. the camera angle doesnt show the shadow as it was going up.
Once again just because you dont see it it doesnt mean its not there.

edit on 27-9-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)

Yes, thats what I said.
But now what about the camera angle stops the shadow from showing up on the way up?
Once again, apparent special effects issues right in your face, and you dont even acknowledge it.
Only because somebody told you that this was filmed on the moon, LOL.

You can't see the shadow because there's a depression in the ground between the astronaut and where the bag lands. This is easily explainable. And anyway if somebody went to the trouble to create the affect of a shadow why would they leave half of it out? Oh maybe they were trying to covertly tell the rest of us something as they and their families were under threat of death for not cooperating with the evil omnipotent NASA.

Another pathetic attempt. I mean that's the weakest argument I've seen you try Foos. Ignore the topic of the video and focus on a nothing. You're like a kid who puts his hands over his ears and starts yelling when his mamma tries to tell him santa doesn't exist.

Originally posted by seabhac-ruaAnother pathetic attempt. I mean that's the weakest argument I've seen you try Foos. Ignore the topic of the video and focus on a nothing. You're like a kid who puts his hands over his ears and starts yelling when his mamma tries to tell him santa doesn't exist.

edit on 27-9-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

I guess you walked right into that one...

"Be advised , there is a Santa Claus", page 1

uttered by Jim Lovell on DECEMBER 25th , 1968 ,yes Christmas day . and more importantly , moments after the Apollo 8 command module had cleared the radio shadow of the dark side of the moon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

A rocket launch witnesses by millions is still a rocket launch. A TV show on the "moon landings" watched by millions is still a TV show.
Now if you can produce the telemetry tapes which matches exactly your scriptural texts (the ALSJ, et al) then we could have better confidence in the claim that a rocket launch = a moon landing. Until then there is a huge empty space in the logical sequence of events.

False. The telemetry was monitored in real time by an army of trained professionals. In order to "fool" them, another army of trained professionals would need to fabricate the data. As usual, the "hoax hypothesis" makes things more complicated. If NASA were trying desperately to provide spurious evidence, why destroy them? Why go through all the effort to produce hours of telemetry that can fool trained engineers and medical experts, only to destroy it? That would be as preposterous as designing, building and launching a spacecraft that is capable of landing on the Moon, but then not actually landing there. A huge waste of effort! The data on the actual tapes was transferred to a more useful and durable format:



lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

You can probably order it all on microfiche if you're genuinely interested.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StevenQ

 

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.

It was impossible for anyone to discover America in the Middle Ages. We have more technology today in a desktop computer than they did then. No one discovered America.

Of course nobody discovered the Americas because people were already living there, lol.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

You can't see the shadow because there's a depression in the ground between the astronaut and where the bag lands.

No there's not.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

1. Mirrors not needed to bounce lasers off the moon

No, but it is instantly possible to tell whether a laser is bouncing off of the lunar surface, which has a low albedo, or a mirror, which is very, very shiny.

And very very small.

2. Impossible to know what was sent to the moon because of secret space missions.

Argument from ignorance. There were several highly public missions to the Moon. You have yet to prove they didn't happen. When you have done that, you can speculate about missions for which there is no evidence.

I dont have to prove that they didnt happen.
NASA has to prove that they actually did.


Speaking of which, where are the press conferences videos, DJ?

reply to post by DJW001


What does your link prove? Uncertainties in the program and results were inconclusive.

METABOLISM AND HEAT DISSIPATION DURING APOLLO EVA PERIODS

Introduction
Extravehicular activity, particularly on the lunar surface, was a key and essential part of the Apollo Program. However, the physical capabilities of the crewmen in the performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) and the physiological cost to the crewmen were some of the significant uncertainties of the program.

Several researchers reported on the effect of one-sixth on the cost of work in a pressure suit. The results were inconclusive.

reply to post by FoosM

I dont have to prove that they didnt happen.
NASA has to prove that they actually did

No, they don't. That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether or not Jarrah can prove that they didn't. No-one cares whether you believe NASA or not, any more than anyone cares whether you believe in the Tooth Fairy or not. Those of us who respect historical methodology have reached very reasonable conclusions, based on the preponderance of evidence. People who espouse the "hoax theory" not only cannot find evidence to support their assertions, they seem to be wielding an unusually rusty Occam's Razor!

Speaking of which, where are the press conferences videos, DJ?

Sorry, it's been less than two business days. Things take time in the real world, you know.