Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by truthquest


First the tank did not explode pressure built up in the tank and it ruptured big difference. Its believed heaters on the the tank stuck allowing temperatures to rise to around 1000 degrees F. Its believed this caused insulation on wires to melt and the exposed fan wires shorted and the teflon insulation caught fire in the pure oxygen environment. This fire rapidly heated and increased the pressure of the oxygen inside the tank, and may have spread along the wires to the electrical conduit in the side of the tank, which weakened and ruptured under the pressure. Or in other words luckily for the astronauts the pressure found a release in the weakest area the electrical conduit. This blew off the bay no. 4 cover.Now had the entire tank blown up they would have been dead luckily for them the electrical conduit was not meant to hold those kinds of pressure and failed allowing the Oxygen to vent out into space.

If you would like i can go into radiated heat since once again in his videos he does'nt appear to have ever taken a science course in his life.

reply to post by truthquest


You should read about energy storage on the CSM of Apollo, losing power isn't minor damage. In fact the issue of Power is more important than that astronauts themselves!

Since without power the astronauts are DEAD

Here is my thread about power on Apollo spacecraft 4 electrons

Well this guys account has been suspended again sinnce he was put on ATS
this is what happens when you get close tothe truth

sorry he has not been,name mix up

reply to post by nick1


deleted, nvm...

[edit on 26 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

One thing that strikes me about this thread is not so much the content of the JW videos, but the references it has led to. And I don't mean the NASA references, but the references to other hoax 'researchers'.

It's taken a while, but as most who address the claims of someone like Jarrah White are used to, this thread has led to the inevitable references to claims by the likes of Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, Jack White, etc. Why? Because although supporters might tout Jarrah as being groundbreaking and original, all of his material is cribbed from others.

Sure, he's done it up nicely and plunked it onto YouTube, but he's not presenting anything new; and, when those who refute his claims state this material has all been debunked before, they generally mean that the original claimants' cases had been dismissed ages ago.

Some observations on this:

1. To his credit, JW seems to have a good understanding of the YouTube generation; make it look good, present it as an investigation, and focus on asking questions rather than answering them. Despite his distinctive, nasal twang, he still reminds me of Eric Cartman's "I'm just asking questions!" This isn't research, it's pandering to an audience he believes will accept a total lack of verifiable conclusions if the videos look good and accusations seem damning.

2. If JW is carrying on the work of others who've clearly failed to make a clear, defensible case for a fraud, then why hasn't he addressed the issues raised by those who've challenged his predecessors? Not only is his work unoriginal, but so is his responses to challenges, and his tactics in the face of rebuttals/refutations? If he's such a genius, why does he fail to see that tactics that have failed in the past are unlikely to succeed now?

3. The material he's re-re-hashing goes back more than 30 years now. His fans may enjoy his continued flogging of this horse, but opponents continue to be annoyed by one huge, unanswered question. Where is this all headed?

One would expect, if the moon landings were hoaxed, some convergence over the decades. The evidence would first point to inarguable proof of wrong-doing, then unambiguously identify certain perpetrators of the hoax, then follow the trail of evidence to their handlers, then blow the whole scam wide open. That hasn't happened in 40 years. (Well, 30 since the hoax theories started popping up in print.)

Watergate is a great example. A night watchman finds a piece of tape holding a lock open and removes it. He returns later to find that the lock has been taped over again. This prompts a sweep of the building that catches five burglars, none of whom sell out their handlers. And yet, there's a trail that can be followed from these relative fleebs all the way to the White House. In less than two years!

So where's the Apollo 'tape'? In all this time, hoax proponents should be able to identify it. But they don't, or won't.

Who put it there? Who were they working for? NASA has published all the org charts one could ask for. Why can hoax 'researchers' not follow the trail? Can they not, or have they just not bothered?

A huge conspiracy like this would necessarily leave tracks. Watergate was much smaller (at the pointy end, at least), and yet the trail could be followed. Are Apollo hoax 'researchers' this inept? Is NASA more spectacularly brilliant than even the White House? Or have we not been treated to irrefutable proof of a hoax simply because there wasn't one?

And as an aside -- there are conspiracies! I believe it. People sometimes do underhanded things for their own reasons, whether they be selfish or (arguably) altruistic. Legit conspiracy researchers should be appalled that hacks like Jarrah White discredit them all by making them look like ineffectual, misguided kooks.

I think it's about time that our putative genius stop asking questions and start formulating solid answers.

reply to post by dragonridr


I generally agree with you but disagree with your language. Look at a Reuters story today:
ca.news.yahoo.com...

Presumably the pressure built up inside the grill until the tank ruptured. The result was called an explosion, not just a rupture. Explosion is a violent release of gasses. And in both the grill explosion and the LOX tank explosion, thats just what you got.

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I generally agree with you but disagree with your language. Look at a Reuters story today:
ca.news.yahoo.com...

Presumably the pressure built up inside the grill until the tank ruptured. The result was called an explosion, not just a rupture. Explosion is a violent release of gasses. And in both the grill explosion and the LOX tank explosion, thats just what you got.

So then a fart (at least some of them) is an explosion, by your definition.

What's your point?

I just watched the first video. Completely amateurish, not the least bit scientific. While a balloon can in fact hold a static charge, JW has done absolutely nothing to indicate that a balloon would hold as much as an astronaut's suit on the moon. Further, different types of materials will react differently. Does the flag he use in his replication have the same material as the moon flag? Who knows...until he can control for these other factors his approach is meaningless. This would be a solid middle-school science experiment but it is definitely not an example of outwitting NASA. Besides, this would only address one potential source of the flag's movement (two if you buy that the flag moved away from him first). I like that folks are trying, but this is not even close to being evidence of fraud.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I generally agree with you but disagree with your language. Look at a Reuters story today:
ca.news.yahoo.com...

Presumably the pressure built up inside the grill until the tank ruptured. The result was called an explosion, not just a rupture. Explosion is a violent release of gasses. And in both the grill explosion and the LOX tank explosion, thats just what you got.

So then a fart (at least some of them) is an explosion, by your definition.

What's your point?

Search 1: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" : 3,190 results
Search 2: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" : 1,260 results

Search 3: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" site:.gov : 116 results
Search 4: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" site:.gov : 42 results

The oxygen tank ruptured and that rupture was an explosion. Enough said?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

Originally posted by truthquest


Search 1: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" : 3,190 results
Search 2: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" : 1,260 results

Search 3: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" site:.gov : 116 results
Search 4: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" site:.gov : 42 results

The oxygen tank ruptured and that rupture was an explosion. Enough said?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are getting at here.

None.

Originally posted by truthquest
The oxygen tank ruptured and that rupture was an explosion. Enough said?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

No, nothing said at all, unless you're willing to say what you're insinuating. Get on with it, and quit wasting our time guessing what you're on about.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by truthquest


Search 1: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" : 3,190 results
Search 2: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" : 1,260 results

Search 3: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" site:.gov : 116 results
Search 4: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" site:.gov : 42 results

The oxygen tank ruptured and that rupture was an explosion. Enough said?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are getting at here.

None.

reply to post by torch2k



To understand what I'm getting at, lets have a look back at the conversation up to this point:

me:
But then again it [the Apollo 13 liquid oxygen tank] did explode.

dragonridr:
The tank did not explode pressure built up in the tank and it ruptured big difference.

me, truthquest:
The result was called an explosion, not just a rupture.

you, Tomblvd:
So then a fart (at least some of them) is an explosion, by your definition.

me, truthquest:
Search 3: "apollo 13" "tank exploded" site:.gov : 116 results
Search 4: "apollo 13" "tank ruptured" site:.gov : 42 results

The oxygen tank ruptured and that rupture was an explosion. Enough said?

you, Tomblvd:
I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are getting at here. None.

I was getting at the same point I was making in the last two or three posts, which is that the oxygen tank *exploded*.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by truthquest]

uh oh did shatner expose something and didn't even realize it?

Originally posted by dragnet53
uh oh did shatner expose something and didn't even realize it?

I watched the video. I didn't see anything 'exposed'. Funny story though.

Originally posted by truthquest

I was getting at the same point I was making in the last two or three posts, which is that the oxygen tank *exploded*.

Yup. Blew a big chunk outta the Service Module. And?

Originally posted by dragnet53
uh oh did shatner expose something and didn't even realize it?

What? That the Enterprise blew by the LM while he was sitting inside it on the ground?

Was that a joke by the engineers? Or by Mr Spock? (Who would, of course, have had the conn if Capt. Kirk was away.) No, wait, wasn't that Nimoy sitting in on the interview, too? Musta bin Scotty?

If it's a deeper matter than that, give us a hint, at least, wouldja?

Originally posted by dragnet53
uh oh did shatner expose something and didn't even realize it?

even Shatner thought using a sextant in space was ridiculous