Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Please provide a source re: ESA's SMART-1 results being inconsistent with Apollo samples. And while you're at it you might as well tell us about LCROSS, LRO, Chandrayaan-1, and Kaguya.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Please provide a source re: ESA's SMART-1 results being inconsistent with Apollo samples. And while you're at it you might as well tell us about LCROSS, LRO, Chandrayaan-1, and Kaguya.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

I did give you a source. I told you it was in Exhibit D at the beginning of my post. I was currently on part 6, but you may want to start on part 1 to see it from the beginning.

As far as LCROSS, LRO, Chandrayaan-1, and Kaguya, I haven't seen all the videos yet, but i'll know to watch out for those if they have juicy tid-bits.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I mean an original source. You know, like articles, scientific papers.
I don't need a repeat of what Jdub says.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

I mean an original source. You know, like articles, scientific papers.
I don't need a repeat of what Jdub says.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Jdub.. you mean Jarrah White? This thread is about his videos. All I'm saying is this is the info in his video I found interesting. I haven't done nor have claimed to do my own research on this matter.

Originally posted by Josephus23
An independent journalist named Dave McGowan has done one of the most thorough jobs that I have seen yet in debunking the Moon Landings.

Here is a link to his homepage.

Click on the 12 part series titled "Wag the Moondoggie".

This is a really good series. McGowan makes a good argument that the Apollo missions were really just a cover for siphoning money off into black ops (wagging the moondoggie).

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

None of your own research but you are perfectly willing to accept Jarrah's at face value.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

None of your own research but you are perfectly willing to accept Jarrah's at face value.

Now, I know you. Don't go putting words in my mouth for the sake of argument. As stated in my post I did say they were talking about these things as a possibility. I did not say I believed everything I saw and heard at face value. Only that this line was interesting.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

My apologies. I must have misunderstood when you said this:

It seems NASA didn't think everyone would bother to actually go up an compare the moons composition with the so called Apollo moon rocks.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

My apologies. I must have misunderstood when you said this:

It seems NASA didn't think everyone would bother to actually go up an compare the moons composition with the so called Apollo moon rocks.

Yes.. that was according to what I was watching.. I thought that was understood.

Phage, Let me ask you.

This guy does a good job of debunking a lot of the debunkers arguments. I don't agree with all of them myself. I think he has an axe to grind the way he tries to chew up his opponents and sometimes makes much out of seemingly small things.

But don't you find any of his arguments compelling?

[edit on 23-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by FoosM
So how do you explain this:

and this

FoosM, I am getting sick to death of these ridiculously unexplained, uncaptioned posts.

Do you not speak English well, perhaps? OR are you afraid that your explanations will reveal your lack of knowledge? Don't be scared, some of us would like to help you understand.

To be very specific about what is wrong with the posting above, it comes back to a component of "The Scientific Method". Sounds highly scary, but it's just flippin' common sense. It's all about carefully defining and explaining the issue. Why can't you do that?

So what you SHOULD have done was:
Firstly, summarise the issue, eg that might be something like:
"I don't think the times and shadows match up with what really happened on the Moon during the Apollo mission."

Then, when you post the images, you should reference them (yay- you DID that for the first one), but also include annotations showing the relevance, eg what time was the first one taken, and from where? Which things on the image are causing you concern - lean how to use an image editor to annotate the images. (You should also declare any post-processing or cropping, of course.)

When posting animated gif images, it is PARTICULARLY important to give sources for the original images, otherwise there is no context whatsoever. In this case, what the heck is the point of that gif of the slight change in flag shadow - where did the images come from, and what is your point?

Yes, we can look them up, but the fact that you do not give this information up front must mean:
- you wish to make it difficult for anyone to debate you
- you have made deliberate changes to the images
- *you* don't understand what point you are trying to make
- you are very lazy
- you believe everyone can read your mind
..or some combination thereof.

As for me, I really enjoy PROPERLY analysing Apollo imagery. So, if you have a good point, I will happily go through the PROPER analysis and if you are right, agree with you and concede the point.

And you *might* have a really good point here... BUT WHO THE HECK WOULD KNOW? And given the way you go about stuff, I think it is beyond very likely that your 'interpretation' of these images will be debunked completely, just like all the rest...

So these delaying tactics aren't helping the cause.

Anyway, feel free to come back with the missing information. If I have to go find it, I will be making that point VERY LOUDLY when I come back later...


Now, about masterp... be back shortly...


[edit on 23-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I have watched Exhibits A, B and C and the C Moon rock videos. Does anyone know if there is place to get all the videos on a dvd? I want to keep watching them but they are hard to follow on You Tube because I don't know what is supposed to be coming next.

If you go to JWs Channel
choose Playlist and look for "The MoonFaker Series"

There all the videos are in order.
And when you play one, it will start to play the next in order automatically.

It seems like the Apollo believers, or I should say "propagandists", because they have an agenda, want you to cite sources. Well you correctly stated the video was your source. And as any researcher would do, JW cites his sources constantly. So anyone who takes time to really watch his video can find out where he gets his info from.
Then they can decide to debate the interpretation or validity of the source information or not.

JW might be biased, but one cant say he doesn't try to find as many sources to prove his point. And thats what makes his series so compelling. After I watched Radioactive Anomaly it was the nail in the coffin for me. As it explained why we didnt go in '69-'72 and why humans haven't up to this day been able to go at all. It was a sad day for me to tell you the truth, because for the first time, the idea of humans traveling to other planets (like mars), based on our current science, became an impossibility. Series like Star Trek and others, have over the years really sugar coated space travel. Coupled with the fact that most of thought we went to the moon, it seemed to be only a question of, put more money into it, we can go anywhere. But its not.

So lets stop these lies and discover new technology that might reveal to us how it could be possible. Or should we just be happy with what we got

dbl post

[edit on 23-5-2010 by FoosM]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
So how do you explain this:

and this

FoosM, I am getting sick to death of these ridiculously unexplained, uncaptioned posts.

1. This was in response to Tomblvd's post. He seem to understand it quite well. And gave a silly excuse for it. (Sorry Tom, but camera settings is a laughable reason as if you would say it was due to weather changes.)

2. Are you telling me that you cant see the differences between those three pictures?
Seeing any difference in those pictures is an automatic red flag. No matter how you slice it. In other words, the pictures speak for themselves, why for heaven's sake would you need captions?

Originally posted by FoosM
why for heaven's sake would you need captions?

SIGH.

Because I would like to understand what you are saying about the GIF of the flag shadow, and then examine the originals.

But CLEARLY you don't want anyone to do that.

Masterp, those posts were classic entertainment...

If there is a time difference between the two images, we should see a shadow difference as well

Masterp hadn't, at this time, realised that the Lunar day was about 28 times longer than an Earth day. Then he followed it up with:

Picture 22367 was taken at 166:53:35, whereas picture 22402 was taken at 167:11:55 of EVA-3/GS-8, which means a difference of roughly 19 minutes. Within that amount of time, a change in shadows on Earth is very highly visible, and so on the moon there should have been a very slight variation. We don't have even that slight variation in the pictures posted above.

Ok, let's do the maths. It is pretty simple. The time difference was 19 minutes. 19 divided by 28 is..?

0.68 minutes. That's 40.7 seconds. Hands up everyone who can see the shadow length change that occurs in 41 seconds?

Masterp hadn't finished there... He then picks two images AS17-140-21387 and AS17-143-21941, taken about 6h20m apart, and claims:

We see the astronaut's shadow is roughly the same length.

Firstly, that WE certainly doesn't include me. What *I* see are two completely different images, taken at varying distances, at varying angles, and on differing terrain. masterp apparently thinks those things won't affect the shadow length...

But there are a couple more teensy problems:
- the shadow is truncated at about the chest/shoulder level in the first image!!!
- the astronaut has straight legs in the second..

Here are small versions of the two images, for some context:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cbb88aa60b39.jpg[/atsimg]
I've cropped them a little and resized - so please use the originals if you wish to try any measuring... although clearly that would be absolutely pointless! Let me assure you that the original of the first image does not have any more shadow to the left.

How on earth (or moon) could anyone say with a straight face, that you could compare the shadow lengths????

He then says:

On Earth, within 7 hours, a person's shadow can grow from 0 to 2 meters (let's say from 12 oclock where the shadow of a man is 0 meters from its body to 7 oclock in the evening where the shadow of the man is roughly 2 meters).

Where I live, it's dark at 7pm, for much of the year.. These figures are just vague and not particularly relevant guesses - indeed, if you pick a time just before sunset, your shadow can be MILES long...

Anyway, let's get to the ACTUAL numbers - Masterp then says:

On the moon, we should see 1/28 of that change within the same time period, i.e. 200/28 = 7 centimeters.

Woah. Nope, you cannot do that sort of a calculation usefully here, because the RATE OF CHANGE varies at different times of day. THINK before posting... Funnily enough (and this just goes to prove that people like masterp really should have listened during their math/geometry classes), it is actually MORE than 7cm I won't go through the math (it's quite simple though, and I hope maybe he, or someone else here will give it a shot and check my figures. (Hint - Tangent equals Opposite over Adjacent...)

Using Phage's figures of 39 and 42 degrees sun angle, I calculate the change of shadow length ON FLAT GROUND (bbbzzzzzttt!!) for a 2 meter tall astronaut to be about 24cm (9.5") - from 2.46m down to 2.22m. That's MORE than the wild guess of 7cm, but still only about a 10% change.

As pointed out elsewhere, to have any hope of measuring that you would have to ensure everything was the same - flat ground, same camera and astronaut position, etc.

Next, masterp says:

7 centimeters is not a very big difference, but on little rocks that are roughly around the same size, we don't see any difference in the shadows!

Well, despite that (deliberately?) misleading implication, you are obviously NOT going to see a 7cm change in the 'little rock' shadows! As pointed out above, the change will be ~10%. Again, flat grond needed, same camera angle, same distance.. I now invite masterp to show us his precise measurements of that little rock beneath the flag... I see an object too far away to be accurately measured, and even if you could, the images are taken from different locations and angles, so the terrain issue would screw up any attempt to do so.

The rest of the post has also been deBUNKed, namely that you should be able to see rocks on a 'hill' (North Massif) that is over 2 kilometres distant. I'm rather surprised (ok, not really ) that masterp isn't aware that when you are in a vacuum, there is no haze to help you perceive distance - everything looks close. Despite the fact that they were warned about it, I think *every* astronaut commented on this issue as being surprisingly weird and in some cases, disconcerting.


So, this your first bit of research on Apollo, masterp? I certainly hope so... I'm sure the next one will be a little better informed.


[oops, typed 49, meant 41.]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

a few pages ago someone suggested to google search jarrah white to reveal a systemic pattern of obnoxious online behaviour. Well it is all there for everybody to see. Btw well done to chrlz for stumbling upon the correspondance between dave greer and jenny heller. In my googling i came across this page

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

which happens to be a thread created in a different forum earlier this year in feb with the *exact* wording as posted by wwu777. Doesnt this constitute spam?

Reading the post again it sure comes across as a cheap informercial

reply to post by CHRLZ


I admire your persistence in this thread.

What brain cells I've lost from all the Jarrah crap, I've gained from reading and learning from you.

Big thanks mate!

Originally posted by pezza
Doesnt this constitute spam?

Is that what you think constitutes spam? Posting his thread once on ATS so we could discuss it here?

Thanks, pezza and Chadwickus. I appreciate the encouragement!

pezza, WWu777 *IS* scepcop. He runs/owns(?) that forum - refer his post on the first page of the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given that his site's credo is:

We do not support every quack claim out there, but advocate true skepticism, proper application of the Scientific Method, objectivity and unbiased open inquiry

it makes it all the more ironic when you re-read the OP and look at his title. And given that WWu777 has now vanished (conveniently, right after he was questioned on some incorrect and misleading claims he made), it does not reflect well on him or his site.

I'd really like to see WWu777 return, explain his actions and be made answerable for his words.

Exuberant1, do you approve of his title? Can you name some of the items where NASA has been 'whipped' on Apollo? You know, the ones you think are the best, the ones you won't name...

Do you also approve of him posting falsehoods, and then disappearing when he was called on it??


PS - I note with great interest that WWu777 has posted at ATS recently on another thread.. but he seems to be avoiding this one rather like Exuberant1 avoids naming his 'best evidence'.