Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Thanks for pointing that out chrlz. Because the post opens in first person narrative, particularly with the words " i am speechless as i write this", it doesnt come across that well seeing it in duplicate.

reply to post by dragnet53


Credit where credit is due I say.

Better than ad-hom and off topic comments...

[edit on 23/5/10 by Chadwickus]

This video from Jarrah about the engine plume missing from Apollo got me thinking.

www.youtube.com...

Why do these thruster nozzles from the Apollo images look like no burn has taken place ? They look so clean inside, like an exhaust pipe in a car that's never been used.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0bfd6372a46.jpg[/atsimg]

From what I understand, they use the same hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fuel as the main engine.

reply to post by ppk55


See any carbon in that rocket fuel formula? It's carbon, or "lamp black" that causes the black residue of oxidation.

I assume that the next step for him is to attempt to disprove his own theories, once this is done I will have less skepticism.
until then I will cherish my memories of those black and white TV images of my youth.

Originally posted by FoosM
...In other words, the pictures speak for themselves...

FoosM, despite the fact that you STILL haven't cited the source for the flag images, or what point you were making, I would like to present you with an opportunity. Call it a challenge if you like. (We can check with Exuberant1 later to see if it qualifies as a 'direct' one..)

I am quite happy to go through those first three images you posted, and provide a comprehensive 'semi-forensic' analysis. By comprehensive, I mean it will deal with ALL aspects, including:
- verifying authenticity and 'chain-of-evidence' (lens, camera, film, scanner, archives, other sources, timeline)
- comparing to journal entries and examining context (when taken, from where, what direction, etc)
- identifying any post processing or other enhancements
- determining the conditions (sun angle, exposure settings, effects of vacuum, using mapping data to determine terrain issues, etc)
- defining what can be accurately measured, what cannot and why
- providing error ranges as required
- doing whatever measurements are justifiable, presenting them and showing the calculations as applicable..

and so on... Easy! (If you know how...)

But here's what I want YOU to do - as I go through each step, you need to either agree, or provide CREDIBLE contrary information proving that my approach and/or conclusion is incorrect. If you CANNOT provide contrary information, then your agreement will be conceded by default. I will, of course, abide by the EXACT same rules for my side.

Naturally, as it is a public forum, anyone else may also chime in and help either side, but they TOO must agree to the rules, or... be ignored.

There's one other criteria. If either you or I resort to name calling or insults, that person loses.

Now, if there is a need for arbitration, I am happy for you to nominate an ATS moderator of your choice (providing they are willing to do so). Mod's, any volunteers?

I'm also happy, if you think this is not a worthy issue, for you to select some other, more convincing (to you) claim (- I'd have to be honest and say that I think this one will simply be way too easy for me.. )

So feel free to choose another - but it MUST be a measurable claim. (I would invite other Apollo deniers to suggest their BEST 'claim'..) Opinions and political handwaving do not cut it.


So, over to you - are you up for a decent, sensible, polite debate?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.

So you need to write a lengthy post just to ask for the originals?
Anyway, before I do that, I would like you to please speculate on more important anomalies from magazine 44 I posted recently that I haven't seen anyone address.

As a reminder:

Double Earth
AS11/44/6673


Cropped Earth
AS11-44-6668


Cropped Earth close-up
AS11-44-6668


When looking for an explanation in the Apollo journal I cant seem to find any!

AS11-44-6665 ( 205k )
A nearly full Moon photographed from the Apollo 11 Command Module shortly after TransEarth Injection.

AS11-44-6667 ( 118k )
A nearly full Moon photographed from the Apollo 11 Command Module shortly after TransEarth Injection. Scan by Kipp Teague.

AS11-44-6689 ( 35k or 155k )
The Apollo 11 crew took this view of Earth not long before re-entry. Scan by Kipp Teague.

AS11-44-6692 ( 91k or 288k )
View of Earth prior to re-entry. Note the dramatic red tint of the area near the terminator. Scan by Kipp Teague.

Why did they skip AS11-44-6673 & AS11-44-6668 and more??
I would think double Earth would have been a scientific discovery worthy of front page news! As well as the strange angular haze that surrounds our planet!

Originally posted by ppk55
This video from Jarrah

Ah, there's where you went wrong.

From what I understand, they use the same hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fuel as the main engine.

Well done. How is it, then, that you were unable to work out what the combustion products would be? They are hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia.

Gee, that would give you a nicely bleached, perhaps slightly heat discoloured nozzle. Just like those nicely bleached, but slightly discoloured nozzles you showed...

Ah well, at least you didn't ask why there wasn't any smoke... small mercies.

(If anyone needs a simple-language link on rocket fuels, you know who to ask..)

Thanks, FoosM, for demonstrating PRECISELY what I was talking about.

You haven't cited the source for those images - where are the links to show us where you got them? For I'm guessing the first may be one of the early, semi-automated scans that NASA prepared for small print use (newspapers and the like). It is NOT a high res scan, and has been poorly post-processed (in the usual crappy way - NASA weren't very good at it back in the 70's and 80's, and they still come up with the odd corker...).

Anyway, first up, the double earth. Could be one of three things:
1. A refraction or reflection - but I doubt it - can't think of anything that would give such an undistorted double.
2. A film winding error, at time of capture. Remember this is a film camera, and film transport mechanisms do occasionally screw up, creating a double exposure.
3. A scanning error. Many film scanners have automated film-feed mechanisms, and if it misfeeds or has some sort of data error, it may result in the same effect as a double exposure.

But let's look at the high resolution scan:
history.nasa.gov...
Hmm. No sign of a double earth.

Check the next image:
history.nasa.gov...
Exact same size, so that suggests it wasn't cropped out.

So, it's a double image that appears on some versions, but not the high res scans. I'm afraid I've lost interest...

When looking for an explanation in the Apollo journal I cant seem to find any!

If it was a film-wind error, they wouldn't have known - the camera obviously took that shot, and the next one. With film cameras, you don't get instant feedback, you know... And the journal is about what happened at the time, not what transpired later. So if it is a scan error, of course the journal won't refer to it.

Why did they skip AS11-44-6673 & AS11-44-6668 and more??

Simply because if they reported on every single image in those series, the Journal would be many times longer, for no good reason. All the images are here, in sequence, even the duds (although they did leave out a few frames that were *completely* blank, ie 'wind-ons'):
www.lpi.usra.edu...
That site shows that double-earth version, and it is well-known for having the poorer versions of images - that's why the knowledgeable folk on this thread always post links to the HR versions, like those above..

Anyway, point out the ones that are skipped...?

I would think double Earth would have been a scientific discovery worthy of front page news! As well as the strange angular haze that surrounds our planet!

I agree that the second is quite poor image editing, sadly commonly done to save file size. I shall write a stern note to NASA...

Now, how does that prove that Apollo was hoaxed, exactly?

And I've answered YOUR questions...

I think Jerrah's right about some skeptic's claims. I have read for years that Hams could pick up the feeds from the Apollo missions.

It's was easily check-able that the Apollo used the 2 ghz range and Hams cannot pick that up.

So.. where did the Moon believers get this notion to try to use it as proof?

Did Jerrah just get lucky that this seems to be something the believers were wrong about and it snowballed cus people tend to believe what they read on the Internet?

Did NASA claim this at one time?

And the fact checking he does is good. Like when people say tons of people have picked up the signals with large radio antennas and Jerrah finds that no one but NASA antennas operated in a range that could pick the signals up - and therefore that in itself could not be used as proof, is a very good argument.

Someone should make a list of things Jerrah IS right about that's undeniable. and a list of things he's wrong about. But gee, there are over 210 clips !

EDIT: Flagging The gems 7/8 - www.youtube.com...

" Your partially covering the Rover, but I got a pretty good shot"

Where is the Rover? - Jerrah's right, this video does indeed look edited. He does a great job spotting video edits of the so called " Spaceflight Films" videos that are supposed to be complete and unedited.




[edit on 23-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Hams cannot "pick that up". Did he say why exactly?
You can't add this to your list of thing Jdub is right about. Let's put it in that other list.

legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Where did you get your info from LOL!

We Hams might not be licensed to TRANSMIT on the same frequencies as they used but it has never stopped us making or buying equipment to intercept signals like the Apollo transmissions.
We're still doing it today with the probes like the LRO, not to mention the Mars probes.

Check out a Ham hobby site all about the modern day monitoring here:

www.uhf-satcom.com...

It was even better back then as they utilised analog signals so you actually got to view the signal itself in a meaningful form.

Please don't go around making sweeping statements about things you obviously know nothing about

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Hams cannot "pick that up". Did he say why exactly?
You can't add this to your list of thing Jdub is right about. Let's put it in that other list.

legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Yes, he said why.. er.. Phage.. Didn't you watch these videos?

He says the Apollo uses the S band which operates in the 2 - 4 ghz range, ( this according to the antennas and equiptment specs of the Apollo craft) and he looked up Ham radio frequencies and found they didn't go that high. The article on Ham Radio found on Wikipedia seems to confirm this. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I watched some of it. But I'm waiting for his voice to change. It grates on my nerves too much.

Really? He looked it up did he?

* 1.2 Ghz - my repeater, links, and beacon, plus see my ludicrous physiognamy on FM TV...
* 2.4 Ghz - is the easiest band for homebrew, tons of hottest technology new parts cheap or free!
* 10 GHz - that ain't so high...voice, video, beacons. I get cheap surplus commercial equipment for modules and parts.

www.altair.org...

Did you read the article I linked?

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

I watched some of it. But I'm waiting for his voice to change. It grates on my nerves too much.

Really? He looked it up did he?

* 1.2 Ghz - my repeater, links, and beacon, plus see my ludicrous physiognamy on FM TV...
* 2.4 Ghz - is the easiest band for homebrew, tons of hottest technology new parts cheap or free!
* 10 GHz - that ain't so high...voice, video, beacons. I get cheap surplus commercial equipment for modules and parts.

www.altair.org...

Did you read the article I linked?

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

According to your link.. the CQ magazine with the VHF info in it.. it says the craft used the S band for communication with Earth and only VHF for communication between the LM and the Command Module.

I don't know that the Freqs you speak of were allocated for Ham back then.. you know they are always expanding the bands over the years. I was a shortwave listener myself years back. Also your article says these guys picked up VHF signals in the MHZ range.

Really Phage, if your going to debunk everything Jerrah says, you should at least watch all the videos so you know first hand.

EDIT: Yeah I just saw that link.. sorry I missed it before.. Those bands are not used for voice communications it seems but microwave and satellite for TV ( which they didn't have back then). The 1.2 GHZ (repeater) range does not count because from CQ magazine that was not one of the ranges listed the Apollo craft used.

There may be info about the bands use back then i am not aware of, but I can see why he things he found a good answer.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Did anyone claim that hams talked to the astronauts? There is no restriction on bands that can be monitored. All it takes it the right equipment.

Yes, they received the VHF signals...from the Moon.



Really JohnPhoenix you should try some research of your own. JDub blew it...again.




[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]

I notice you ignored me John, perhaps because actually being a Ham I probably know just a *little* more than dear Jarrah.
As I previously said, he is looking at frequencies we are authorised to operate (read TRANSMIT) in. There is nothing physically stopping us either then or now from RECEIVING whatever freqencies we buy or build equipment for.
You don't even have to be a Ham! Anyone can buy or build the equipment to do so and always could!
All my equipment here can both transmit and receive on many frequencies I am not authorised to transmit on, but as a licensed operator we are TRUSTED not to misuse our knowledge and technical capability.
The EXACT SAME PRINCIPLE applied then as well! It's really no different to the guys on the page I linked to who amongst many others receive the signals today from NASA DSN, Shuttle, Space Station, Lunar probes, etc.
This is your BIG mistake. Listening to people like Jarrah who obviously don't use common sense or logic to arrive at conclusions.
Anyone can go out and buy a scanner and use it to listen to the Shuttle, or to aircraft, the military, etc. Not being able to operate on those frequencies legally does not prevent this? Which is what Jarrah and you are trying to say effectively!
Before you attempt to misquote me, let me emphasise that obviously you needed something a little more sophisticated than your average scanner with a whip antenna. Back then particularly, us Hams used to love making all our own gear.
Why don't you try speaking to some actual Hams about this, instead of listening to a jumped up jerk who clearly doesn't understand his subject matter?


[edit on 23/5/2010 by Iwasas]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Did anyone claim that hams talked to the astronauts? There is no restriction on bands that can be monitored. All it takes it the right equipment.

Yes, they received the VHF signals...from the Moon.



Really JohnPhoenix you should try some research of your own. JDub blew it...again.

I can't see this of any evidence that Jerrah blew anything.

I have read in the past people have said ham users picked up the transmissions. No one claimed they talked to the astronauts.

It was not claimed these people used powerful scanners, only that general ham receiving technology at the time could pick the transmissions up.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

i remember the first moon landing.. when they was done on the moon. one of them put up a camera to record the lift off from the moon. as i watched it on tv. it made a noise like a fire cracker and it just kind of shot up. the cache is you cant hear sound in space.