Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55

It seems strange to give such scientifically valuable moon rocks to +134 heads of state doesn't it.

Not if you're trying to garner international good will. It's called "diplomacy."

Shouldn't they be in a lab? Shouldn't the best scientists the world over be studying them 24/7?

Most of them were saved for scientific study. Studying them 24/7 in 1971 would not yield as much useful data as studying them using current techniques in 2011 or possible future techniques in 2041. That's why they're doling them out so carefully until they know for sure they can get some more.

Why would they go to all that effort to retrieve the most invaluable scientific specimens ever ... only to have them end up in a government official's office? (or lost in a drawer),

They're not necessarily the most invaluable scientific specimens ever. They're just rocks from the Moon. Some day, people will use moon rocks as paperweights... if they still have paper in 2041.

Just as the 700 tapes went missing, it really does seem strange that these extraordinarily valuable samples did not end up in a scientific lab, but rather in the hands on 134+ government heads.

You've been away from the thread for a while, so I guess you missed the part about the tapes. They're not missing, they were re-used. The nice thing about hoax believers is that their "logic" is so flexible. If the US did not hand out free samples to foreigners, the hoax believers would be asking: "If the lunar samples are real, why are they locked away in American labs where no-one but evil American scientists can see them? Welcome back to the thread... now where's that EXIF data?

reply to post by Ove38

Astronaut Jim Lovell did not. Apollo missions to the moon were robotic, like all the other missions to the moon.

So now you're just contenting yourself by making things up again. Well, at least you provided a link for people who don't know what "robotic" means. This link should help those people further understand the meaning of your post:

Link

Originally posted by DJW001
They're not missing, they were re-used.

Mmmm re-used huh? The tapes were 're-used' ... yes I'm sure by now you really think everyone is believing the tapes from the moon landings were 're-used'.

First of all, you've got to be kidding. No tapes of this importance would ever be re-used.

Now to the interesting part ... Why would they on one hand contract Westinghouse to produce a camera that could deliver genuine scientific data ... and then lose the tapes ?



Let's be honest here, it just doesn't add up.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Pan's Labyrinth

Revisited.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Here, we see the math: The FoosM figure of "25 seconds" (jra rightly noted more like 30 seconds).....but, only 18 photos.

Seems the math works out just fine.

A stock "civilian" example (not modified specifically for Apollo) Hasselblad 500 EL:

I want to thank ProudBird for providing this video.
It gave me a chance to make my own little video to help explain
why I think the pan and the 18 photos do not appear possible
assuming it was done on the moon.

Now in this video you will see a little timer set for 30 seconds.
It will start black, and after 25 seconds it will go red.
JRA suggested the 30 seconds, PB agreed with that amount. Cool.
I believe, after watching the video several times its more like 25. Why?
Because you will see at the 25 mark the astronaut does not
turn his knee anymore to pan. Who knows what he was doing, but he was not turning his body.
But I kept the 30 seconds.

Now what I did was simply borrow the sound off the video PB supplied and
put it under the NASA video. Its a simple loop of that person triggering the Hassie, and waiting it for it wind, and triggering it again immediately right after. It should, unless I majorly screwed up, trigger and advance the film 18 times.

You will also see images of the 3 photos my last posts have been about pop up, marking where they should correspond with the video. Keep in mind, the astronaut has, to my knowledge, no cues of when the camera has finished winding, and is depressing the trigger with a pressurized glove.

Alright, here it is:



Ok, just to see if that timing was normal for that camera
I also found another video:

with a motorized, or automatic film advancer.
And it pretty much is the same.

Now...
I also decided for argument's sake, that maybe, just maybe, and I would like Apollo defenders to find evidence for it by video, or explicitly saying it was improved, that Apollo cameras advanced their film a little faster than their commercial counterparts. Even I said earlier, 1 to 1.5 seconds. So, I also made a version with the film advance only lasting a second, which of course helps a lot. But still, when watching it under the video, looks forced and unrealistic. And it still fails under 25 seconds, but makes it by a nose for the 30:




Edit to add:
Dont forget, prior to seeing photo 12424 (first photo that pops up), four photos should have been made already.

reply to post by ppk55

Mmmm re-used huh? The tapes were 're-used' ... yes I'm sure by now you really think everyone is believing the tapes from the moon landings were 're-used'.

No, only the people who understand how reality works. Even the anti-NASA propagandists have to agree that that the fate of the tapes has been discovered, although they continue to use the "missing" claim for rhetorical effect. Go back and read this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

First of all, you've got to be kidding. No tapes of this importance would ever be re-used.

Importance is in the eye of the beholder. No-one seems to consider Apollo more important than the people who think its a hoax! Here, go back and read this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now to the interesting part ... Why would they on one hand contract Westinghouse to produce a camera that could deliver genuine scientific data ... and then lose the tapes ?

They contracted Westinghouse to build a television camera! Since when is a TV show "genuine scientific data?" They save all the actual scientific data, such as the lunar ranging data, data from the ALSEP experiments, etc, in the form most useful for researchers: charts, graphs, maps, etc. They didn't lose the tapes, they simply now no longer need them.

Now, speaking of data, where's that EXIF data that proves that the photo you posted is genuine? Or are you tacitly admitting you were knowingly attempting to deceive?

reply to post by FoosM

I also decided for argument's sake, that maybe, just maybe, and I would like Apollo defenders to find evidence for it by video, or explicitly saying it was improved, that Apollo cameras advanced their film a little faster than their commercial counterparts. Even I said earlier, 1 to 1.5 seconds. So, I also made a version with the film advance only lasting a second, which of course helps a lot. But still, when watching it under the video, looks forced and unrealistic. And it still fails under 25 seconds, but makes it by a nose for the 30:

Thank you for having the intellectual honesty to post the second video. Have a star. It matches perfectly, proving that the photos could have been taken exactly as they appear to. It also helps to understand the parallax issue that caused you to think that Mount Hadley was "too tall" in one of the photos. You can clearly see how the photographer shifts his position as he waddles about, bouncing slightly. The best you can say in defense of your position is that it "looks forced and unrealistic." You are entitled to the opinion, but it is just that: an opinion.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I also decided for argument's sake, that maybe, just maybe, and I would like Apollo defenders to find evidence for it by video, or explicitly saying it was improved, that Apollo cameras advanced their film a little faster than their commercial counterparts. Even I said earlier, 1 to 1.5 seconds. So, I also made a version with the film advance only lasting a second, which of course helps a lot. But still, when watching it under the video, looks forced and unrealistic. And it still fails under 25 seconds, but makes it by a nose for the 30:

Thank you for having the intellectual honesty to post the second video. Have a star. It matches perfectly, proving that the photos could have been taken exactly as they appear to.

Well, mathematically maybe, but realistically, it doesn't.
When did Scott take the first four photos during his pan?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by DJW001
They're not missing, they were re-used.

Mmmm re-used huh? The tapes were 're-used' ... yes I'm sure by now you really think everyone is believing the tapes from the moon landings were 're-used'.

First of all, you've got to be kidding. No tapes of this importance would ever be re-used.

Could you imagine the perpetrators sitting in their board room coming up with an answer:

"You know, my daughter, the other day, accidentally taped over my monday night football... thats what happens
when you dont pull that doggone tab off the VHS cassette... with these, here uh, telemetry tapes, maybe some low paid tech guy forgot to pull off that tab. You see where I'm going with this Jim?"

"Yeah, yeah, I see where you are going with this Joe. We'll just say we taped over it... happens all the time! Sure, we might look like fools in the short term, but in the long term, its better than announcing we faked it all, right? (Laughs) "

"Who's "we" Jim?"


I mean, they had to choose the lesser of two evils

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by DJW001
They're not missing, they were re-used.

Mmmm re-used huh? The tapes were 're-used' ... yes I'm sure by now you really think everyone is believing the tapes from the moon landings were 're-used'.

First of all, you've got to be kidding. No tapes of this importance would ever be re-used.

All so-called "debunker" explanations are odd explanations.

Michael Collins circles round the moon 20 times, but does not have the time to see or picture stars.

Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt spends three days on the Lunar surface, but does not have the time to see or picture the fabulous Earthrise.



www.jaxa.jp...

reply to post by Ove38


Once again....either you are not well informed, or wish to merely spout inane comments that people will just accept without question, and thus sow more "seeds" in minds that can't think critically??

Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt spends three days on the on the Lunar surface, but does not have the time see or picture the the fabulous Earthrise.

I am singling that bit out for a reason. Can you see why? Do you understand the length of a Lunar "day"?

Furthermore, for those who truly wish to investigate and better understand....I have found an interesting program called "Stellarium" --- it is primarily way for amateur astronomers to help them locate stars or other celestial objects. But, it has a neat feature that allows you to view the stars and planets, etc, from many other places in our Solar System besides Earth.

Also, you can adjust the date/time as well. It will allow you to go back to about 100,000 years ago maximum, though.

So, the fun part is this: Adjust the date and time using its controls, and then "place" yourself on the Moon at the Latitude/Longitude locations of the Apollo landing sites. Here, since Apollo 17 was mentioned, is a good place to use it, and then everyone can see for themselves what the Astronauts would have seen, in terms of the Earth's position over the Lunar horizon.

It is free, and unlike Google Earth, does not require you to be online:

www.stellarium.org...

Originally posted by Ove38

He said "I personally made two trips to the moon"

Are you intentionally being pedantic Ove?

You know perfectly well what Lovell meant when he said he made "2 trips to the Moon."

And once again you contradict yourself...........you are willing to accept that Lovell got to orbit the Moon but never touched down......hence your comment :

Originally posted by Ove38.
But never reached it

But you must have scratched your head a bit and thought..........but that means he must of made it through the Van Allen belts and all that solar radiation............hang on I'll change my story a bit to:

Originally posted by Ove38
Astronaut Jim Lovell did not. Apollo missions to the moon were robotic, like all the other missions to the moon.

Once again this makes little sense apart from the fact that robotic probes could not have recovered even a fraction of the moon rocks available.........but hang on you said:

Originally posted by Ove38

Of course they are not of terrestrial origin, they are from space. All meteorites are from space and not from the moon. Meteorites that hit the moon remain on the moon.

......

So what was the purpose of the robotic probes if as you claim the moon rocks are just space meteorites?

And if it was just robotic probes and studio sets.............then why did NASA go to all the trouble to "fake" the Apollo 13 incident.?

It's no wonders guys like Lovell and Aldrin get animated when people accuse them of lying......not so much for themselves, but they get angry about all those that have sacrificed there lives for the Apollo program.
Guys like you Ove make point blank statements with zero evidence to back it up.

Bill Kaysing got off lightly from Lovell......Lovell should have done exactly what Aldrin did to that other idiot film making idiot Bart Sibrel..............punched him in the face.

Originally posted by Logical one
So what was the purpose of the robotic probes if as you claim the moon rocks are just space meteorites?

Take several hundred thousands pictures of the moon's surface, to make accurate models of the moon's surface in a studio on earth, for the Apollo project.



Apollo project

Originally posted by Ove38
Apollo missions to the moon were robotic, like all the other missions to the moon.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your evidence does not back up your claim - there are no Apollo missions listed.

Now here is something thats confusing me.

If the Lunar Rover is moving forward... why do the tracks, make it look like it drives backwards?





next.nasa.gov...
next.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM


I'm confused here, are you just trolling and trying to get a rise out of me, or are you simply making fun of the people who believe the moon was a hoax? Because there's no way in hell you can possibly think that's going backwards.

Originally posted by FoosM
Now here is something thats confusing me.

If the Lunar Rover is moving forward... why do the tracks, make it look like it drives backwards?

Are you referring to the "V" shaped pattern that the tires leave behind? You feel that the rover should drive in the direction that the "V" points in or something? Just look at your last photo. You can clearly see the backside of the rover and how the chevrons are arranged on the tire.

I don't understand why you even brought this up. You feel that the tread pattern is backwards, therefore Apollo is a hoax? Or what? Please enlighten us.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Now here is something thats confusing me.

If the Lunar Rover is moving forward... why do the tracks, make it look like it drives backwards?

I don't understand why you even brought this up. You feel that the tread pattern is backwards, therefore Apollo is a hoax? Or what? Please enlighten us.

edit on 30-10-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)

It was late and it looked funny to me. But it makes sense now.

Originally posted by FoosM
Now here is something thats confusing me.
If the Lunar Rover is moving forward... why do the tracks, make it look like it drives backwards?

Does the Lunar Rover move upwards or downwards in this photo ? If so, why ?

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by FoosM
Now here is something thats confusing me.
If the Lunar Rover is moving forward... why do the tracks, make it look like it drives backwards?

Does the Lunar Rover move upwards or downwards in this photo ? If so, why ?

history.nasa.gov...

LOL, astronaut is doing bench presses.

MoonFaker: Where's The Plume?

Lets see how many defenders watch this and come up with some good dubunks.

A follow up to my earlier video on the absence of any engine plume during the LM liftoff videos. Previously I showed that the Apollo 9 spacecraft shows a bright plume when the engine ignites, whereas the LM ascent stages on Apollos 15, 16 and 17 do not.

Since the release of my first video on this subject new visual evidence has been brought to my attention. We'll also quickly debunk the desperation that some propagandists have resorted to in response.