View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 14 Feb 2014, 13:50

ProfWag wrote:
FatFreddy wrote:The proof that they didn't go is crushing.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3067&start=0

Except virtually every one of those videos has been debunked. The math and physics say it's possible. The physical evidence that was left on the moon and the countries that have sent up craft and took photos of the remains say it's possible. The physical evidence that was returned from the moon says it's possible. Then there's the "too many people across several decades and from many different countries having to keep a secret" that says it's highly probable. Then there's the "hoaxers" who have posted false and misleading information to further their cause. And all the "hoaxers" have to stand on are some photos, that don't have anything to do with whether or not we went to the moon, that have been put forth by uneducated nobodies.
To say the "proof" is crushing is, well, crushed.

Of course a manned moon mission is 'possible' with enough technology and know-how and an appropriate energy source and enough rocket science, except for shielding -- the requisite amount of shielding by weight requires larger and larger rockets to the point of infeasibility. But the chances of 6 out of 6 missions succeeding without a single serious rocket mishap is highly unlikely using 1960s technology. The physics actually says they probably couldn't have packed enough batteries to provide the power they needed to power a/c and everything else. The physics also says the LEM design vernier rockets are in the wrong place to rotate the craft on a vertical axis. The physics also says a single central LEM main thruster rocket would not have descended vertically without a hitch. The physics also suggests the astronauts could not have fitted through the hatches they were claimed to have passed through all suited up.

So profwag's arguments are very weak at best.

1) Physical evidence left on the moon -- there is no picture of any physical evidence left on the moon
2) Physical evidence 'brought back' -- could have easily been gathered in the Antarctic and from WA and from other places -- including a piece of petrified wood inadvertently included in the friendship rocks. Moon rocks are released 'for scientific study' in sugar cube sized pieces or possibly even smaller from what I have heard, and barely any of it has been released to anyone you would consider independent and impartial for study
3) "too many people keeping a secret" -- who knows? doesn't prove anything. The Manhattan Project was kept a secret with many people. most subcontractors didn't need to know anything, they were just making a part on spec. many others are effectively military personnel, as is NASA itself in reality.
4) 'official NASA photos showing many flaws, signs of fakery and smoking guns are nothing to go on' -- great argument there, profwag.

He's clearly taking the piss, to be honest, or back in his favourite spot in de Nile.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Aug 2014, 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 16 Feb 2014, 19:10

SydneyPSIder wrote:
So profwag's arguments are very weak at best.

1) Physical evidence left on the moon -- there is no picture of any physical evidence left on the moon

Yes there is, and from different sources. Look it up!
SydneyPSIder wrote:2) Physical evidence 'brought back' -- could have easily been gathered in the Antarctic and from WA and from other places -- including a piece of petrified wood inadvertently included in the friendship rocks. Moon rocks are released 'for scientific study' in sugar cube sized pieces

Simply not true. Look it up!
SydneyPSIder wrote:
3) "too many people keeping a secret" -- who knows? doesn't prove anything. The Manhattan Project was kept a secret with many people.

Also not true. Look it up! Here's some help on the Manhattan Project: "Keeping 120,000 people quiet would be impossible; therefore only a small privileged cadre of inner scientists and officials knew about the atomic bomb's development. In fact, Vice-President Truman had never heard of the Manhattan Project until he became President Truman." http://www.ushistory.org/us/51f.asp
SydneyPSIder wrote:4) 'official NASA photos showing many flaws, signs of fakery and smoking guns are nothing to go on' -- great argument there, profwag.

The flaws only exist if you use your imagination or are looked at re-touched photos by CTers. Look it up!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Feb 2014, 11:20

oops, JW has weighed in on the Chang'e 3 mission. Points out that the soil/regolith analysis information coming back from the unmanned Chinese probe is conspicuously different from the soil make-up claimed by the US NASA Apollo missions who claimed to have sent astronauts to the moon with a trowel and a pickaxe to bring back hundreds of kilos of soil and rock samples.

This video was produced in November 2013 and was intended to be my own little retrospective on the Chinese space program leading up to their then upcoming Chang'e 3 mission. Many had asked for my thoughts along those lines. Would it be real? Would China go along with NASA's moon hoax?

Had someone asked me this back in 2008, I would have said that China's free trade deals with the United States would keep them quiet. But of course, now their relationship has become rather strained and shaky. And so it was unpredictable as to what the Chinese would do. That said, I decided to hold off on publishing this video until we had some data to correlate with my predictions.

Well, now we have the data. In particular, we have data from the Yutu rover's Active Particle X-ray spectrometer. Early last month, China announced that this spectrometer had detected the elements Magnesium, Aluminum, Silicon, Potassium, Calcium, Titanium, Chromium, Iron, Strontium, Yttrium and Zirconium. While these elements are indeed found in the Apollo rock samples, analysis of the spectral lines reveals that the quantities of these elements are vastly different between the Apollo and Chang'e 3 soils. For examples: the Apollo rock and soil is predominantly silicon dioxide, while the Chang'e 3 soil appears to be predominantly calcium and titanium oxides.

In other words, if the Chang'e 3 mission and its x-ray spectral data is real, that means that the actual lunar geology is different to that of the Apollo rock samples.




Note JW's remarks about the heavy reliance between various countries and NASA in order to get payloads into space, until very recently. Interesting quid pro quo between the countries to answer Profwag's questions on why various external ppl might collude in a cover-up.

Note China's space walks look suspicious and look like they were done in a swimming pool!

But Profwag knows best. He's weighed up the probability of keeping the hoax a secret, and that therefore defines the outcome. And he doesn't watch youtubes, so the above analysis is invalid from the outset! Sorry a genuine scientist like JW working towards his B.Sc. has done an actual analysis where Profwag and all his PhD friends haven't.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 28 Feb 2014, 19:54

SydneyPSIder wrote: And he doesn't watch youtubes, so the above analysis is invalid from the outset! Sorry a genuine scientist like JW working towards his B.Sc. has done an actual analysis where Profwag and all his PhD friends haven't.

OMG! I haven't laughed so hard since the first time I watched Eddie Murphy's Delirious video back in the VCR days. Thanks for that! What a great way to start my Friday with a good laugh. Ooohhhhh, genuine scientist. You kill me Syd. :lol:
And then to top it off with claiming that youtube videos are a great way to analyze a subject. Man, just funny. Keep it up Syd. That was hysterical!!! Yep, I'm still laughing!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Mar 2014, 10:13

um, you haven't addressed the subject matter of JW's video.

Have you ever watched a doco on TV about anything, profwag? Are you saying if that same doco gets put on youtube it suddenly becomes unwatchable and invalid?

Watching that video, you might incidentally round out some of your understanding of mass spectrography and the nature of the probes etc, as you often admit you are scientifically illiterate.

To make it even easier, you can jump to these nice colourful easy to understand barcharts and avoid all the scary numbers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar8FNxi ... age#t=1527

If you want to rewind a bit to look at the scary numbers and see the official Apollo sources used, you can see your precious 'Apollo scientific papers' getting ripped apart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar8FNxi ... age#t=1349

It's very interesting that a NASA probe threw up some dust 8 years ago and promised some results inside a year, and they have never published their findings since. Doubtless PW will be able to think of a very plausible and convincing reason why this should be.

Is everyone observing profwag's pseudosceptic MO carefully here? He also seems very afraid. Maybe his handlers have threatened to fit him with some concrete overshoes if he doesn't make this stuff go away.

Your boat has quite a few holes in it below the waterline now, wag.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 01 Mar 2014, 19:49

SydneyPSIder wrote:um, you haven't addressed the subject matter of JW's video.
.

Yea, sorry ‘bout that. I just get to giggling every time I looked at your post that said that JW was a genuine scientist. Still cracks me up!

In any event, there’s another reason. In order to really understand what Jarrah (or anyone else for that matter) tries to say in a youtube video, one must start, stop, rewind, go forward, research without references, etc. However, I watched that stupid video and that’s 3 hours of my life I can’t get back. Don’t ask me to ever do that again because I won’t. Sure, the video is “only” 37 minutes long, but it takes a lot longer if you’re REALLY going to figure out what he’s saying. What I found was that his video is largely misrepresented and highly hypocritical. Here’s a couple examples and then I’m moving on with my life.

First, JW states that the West “ignored” the fact that Russia’s Luna 24 found water in 1976 and was reported in 1978. I have two problems with that. First, to ignore something, one must know about it first. The article that presented the findings of water in 1978 was in a magazine that no one in the West read. How can we “ignore” something if we don’t see it to begin with? Some of NASA’s moon rocks were found with traces of water as well, but were thought to be contaminates as was the Luna 24 sample.

Next, and here’s the hypocritical statement from Jarrah, he claims the "West ignored” it, yet, from his own FAQ on his own website, he states:
“Q: But hasn’t water been found on the moon remotely by Cassini, Chandrayaan-1 & Deep Impact? Not to mention kicked up by LCROSS?
A: The only significant findings were in the lunar polar regions. Regions were (sic) the daylight temperatures drop below the boiling point of water (Fig-16) and where some craters are permanently shadowed (Fig-17). The highest water detected in the remote sensing data was at the North Pole: 3,000ppm. By comparison, the only signs of water outside the polar regions were so low that they didn’t even register in the Chandrayaan-1 data (Fig-18, 19, 20, 21)”
If he says the West “ignored” Russia’s findings, then he must have “ignored” them as well because he clearly doesn’t mention Luna 24 either. (Syd, you might want to point that out to Jarrah so he can update his FAQ.

Somewhere around the 24:30 mark, JW makes the comment that “since we don’t expect to find rust on the moon.” Why not? According to research, there were traces of rust found. (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_25.htm)

Next, his main case is that Chang’s 3 mission detected essentially the same elements but with different amounts. Essentially, that’s what the purpose of that entire video was, right? This is what he said: “While these elements are indeed found in the Apollo rock samples, analysis of the spectral lines reveals that the quantities of these elements are vastly different between the Apollo and Chang'e 3 soils. For examples: the Apollo rock and soil is predominantly silicon dioxide, while the Chang'e 3 soil appears to be predominantly calcium and titanium oxides.
In other words, if the Chang'e 3 mission and its x-ray spectral data is real, that means that the actual lunar geology is different to that of the Apollo rock samples.”

Well, Duh! The moon is made up of different kinds of rocks in different parts of the moon (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/bo ... ceBook.pdf). Of course the makeup is going to be different! Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. Chang’s 3 mission which shows that it contains most of the same elements actually supports the finding of the Apollo missions. JW, either intentionally or unintentionally, wants the listener to form a different conclusion. Totally unethical from an academic standpoint.

If Mr. White is still going to school, as Syd claims to know, then he surely has written some research papers as those are required in virtually every academic class that I am aware of. If he has, then these should be posted so other academics can actually research his findings. Youtube videos don’t cut it when trying to academically research a subject. If anyone thinks they should be allowed, then they have never attended an accredited university.

Again, I will NEVER watch another of Jarrah’s videos so please don’t ask me too. If he makes a point that you would like to present and you show that you have verified what he says, then fine, I’ll read it. But don’t ask me to watch again.

Glad to see he cut his hair though.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby FatFreddy » 02 Mar 2014, 03:32

FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Mar 2014, 19:01

I'm of the firm belief that the moon is made of green cheese.

Yes, JW is looking more urbane these days.

It's not clear to me how the regolith is formed, without doing more reading. I was of the understanding it a pile of stuff that's landed on the moon over time from space. Interestingly, silicon dioxide is basically just sand. Calcium is another kettle of fish altogether -- it implies large parts of the moon are kind of made of chalk.

Also not sure if the moon is meant to be homogeneous -- I think JW cited an 'expert' who claimed it might well be, but no idea how anyone could know.

Although there are no weathering effects on the moon -- wind, rain, glaciation, etc, and there appears to be no further volcanic activity, of course every large solid celestial body has gone through a stage of being a molten ball, being made of a bunch of elements from a star exploding, and these elements cooling over time to form rock structures. Tectonic plate activity is probably likely up until the point where the centre of the body has cooled and frozen the plates in place. You would expect some diversity in the rock samples from place to place in that case.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Mar 2014, 19:17

SydneyPSIder wrote:You tell me how anyone can be a 'specialist in space smells', it's a silly PR crock -- and your US taxpayers' dollars are propping up that kind of crap instead of paying for healthcare here on earth.

ProfWag wrote:That just shows your ignorance on space. How about researching the subject? It's interesting, actually.

SydneyPSIder wrote:why don't you tell us all about it, wag.



how the hell can 'space' smell like anything when it's an almost perfect vacuum with nothing in it and it's at about 0 degrees kelvin, i.e. -273 degrees C? That's like saying homeopathy works.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Mar 2014, 20:43

SydneyPSIder wrote:
how the hell can 'space' smell like anything when it's an almost perfect vacuum with nothing in it and it's at about 0 degrees kelvin, i.e. -273 degrees C? That's like saying homeopathy works.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/what-does-space-smell
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 05:29

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
how the hell can 'space' smell like anything when it's an almost perfect vacuum with nothing in it and it's at about 0 degrees kelvin, i.e. -273 degrees C? That's like saying homeopathy works.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/what-does-space-smell

that is hilarious. that is the most BS article I have ever read. they say one moment space is an almost complete vacuum, then say that nonetheless it's full of molecules that smell of something like a BBQ -- apparently from a complex organic lifeform like a gazelle involving amino acids, peptides, proteins that have been burnt and crosslinked. profwag's '(flying) pigs in space' assertion.

Even burnt fuel, simple hydrocarbons, doesn't smell anything like a BBQ or a burnt steak. It can't be diesel burning and beefsteak burning at the same time.

What is this 'popular science' malarkey about? Complete tripe.

Then they make the claim that the astronauts claimed the moon smelt 'metallic' -- which we know is a BS ruse because they didn't go. So is it metallic or does it smell like a BBQ? Which is it prof? Given that it's airless, and almost completely empty, bar some micrometeors travelling at 20,000 mph and a vacuum all the way. There's a few molecules of crap in every cubic mile of space, just like homeopathy.

The only thing the astronauts on the ISS in low earth orbit would be able to smell is their own BO and plastic solvent. There are simply not enough molecules in airless space to even get an impression of something, otherwise space would be full of black soot. Don't recall seeing your precious moon landers covered in black soot from space when they 'landed' on the moon. You want it both ways -- space is both smelly and full of black soot supposedly from complex hydrocarbons somehow forming and burning in unprotected space and pristine and empty and completely lacking in dangerous micrometeors as well. That's why no astronauts were killed in transit or on the moon!

There is no evidence of tons of soot flying around in space. That's like a 17th century theory of the ether or something.

Why don't you produce a real scientific paper of the concentration of hydrocarbons or anything else in deep space or even inner space, instead of complete junk from so-called 'popular science', which looks like it should be retitled 'tales of the absurd and far-fetched'. What does air smell like, by the way, prof? here's to profwag's genuine homeopathic-strength 'smells of space'.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Mar 2014, 05:59, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 05:57

SydneyPSIder wrote:Why don't you produce a real scientific paper of the concentration of hydrocarbons or anything else in deep space or even inner space, instead of complete junk from so-called 'popular science', which looks like it should be retitled 'tales of the absurd and far-fetched'. What does air smell like, by the way, prof?

Why don't you ask Jarrah to produce a real scientific paper on, well, anything?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 06:01

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Why don't you produce a real scientific paper of the concentration of hydrocarbons or anything else in deep space or even inner space, instead of complete junk from so-called 'popular science', which looks like it should be retitled 'tales of the absurd and far-fetched'. What does air smell like, by the way, prof?

Why don't you ask Jarrah to produce a real scientific paper on, well, anything?

he often does, and often debunks them, as well. or do you mean write an article? his videos go a long way as a 'document', he seems happy with that. I'm sure if he tried to publish a full scientific paper on the subject, 'the machine' would shut him down pretty quickly, but not on the facts.

further on the metallic smell of the moon, vs the deep-fried BBQ smell of empty space, the Apollo samples came back very strong on silicon dioxide, which is ordinary beach sand by another name. so why should the moon smell 'metallic'? does the beach smell metallic?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 06:11

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Why don't you produce a real scientific paper of the concentration of hydrocarbons or anything else in deep space or even inner space, instead of complete junk from so-called 'popular science', which looks like it should be retitled 'tales of the absurd and far-fetched'. What does air smell like, by the way, prof? here's to profwag's genuine homeopathic-strength 'smells of space'.

Do you mean like this one?

The Abundances of Hydrocarbon Functional Groups in the Interstellar Medium Inferred from Laboratory Spectra of Hydrogenated and Methylated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
M. Steglich et al. 2013 ApJS 208 26. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/26
Received 18 March 2013, accepted for publication 19 August 2013. Published 30 September 2013.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 06:24

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
Why don't you produce a real scientific paper of the concentration of hydrocarbons or anything else in deep space or even inner space, instead of complete junk from so-called 'popular science', which looks like it should be retitled 'tales of the absurd and far-fetched'. What does air smell like, by the way, prof? here's to profwag's genuine homeopathic-strength 'smells of space'.

Do you mean like this one?

The Abundances of Hydrocarbon Functional Groups in the Interstellar Medium Inferred from Laboratory Spectra of Hydrogenated and Methylated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
M. Steglich et al. 2013 ApJS 208 26. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/26
Received 18 March 2013, accepted for publication 19 August 2013. Published 30 September 2013.

heh heh, wow, you found a paper with an impressive title that looks half-plausible, that just proves it. in fact, the 'popular science' hack journo who wrote the crap article was probably passed that finding and told to write some BS treatment on it, coupled with some more BS about how the moon smells 'metallic' from another source. what's the measured concentration of these alleged and 'inferred' polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in deep space? given that they're invisible and also in the gaseous phase won't stick to clothes or spacesuits on re-entry after an EVA. And especially not in any concentration to be picked up by human smell, and especially not smell like a BBQ. In particular, which astronauts are reporting BBQ smells? The ones inside the van Allen belts on the edge of the earth's atmosphere? you know, where the strength of earth's gravity would pull substantial heavier than air molecules down to the earth's surface. or is it just the sum total of smoke raised by burning the Amazon rainforests and the smoke of a million BBQs on earth, just wafting around in airless inner space despite being heavier than air?

and why weren't the lunar landers covered in soot on the way through space if it's full of large scale aromatic compounds that are detectable by human smell that stick to space suits and clothes? the astronauts didn't mention noticing any soot on their pristine lander on the 'surface of the moon'. nor why deep space smells like an organic BBQ whereas the moon smells 'metallic' although it's apparently made of sand, or according to China's Chang'e 3 samples, chalk. why aren't these organic molecules also stuck to the moon, or detectable on moon rock and regolith samples in one of the 'thousands' of spectrographic assays you claim have been done on the 'returned' samples?

but in particular can you just let us know the actual concentration in deep space of these 'inferred' particles. Given that you'd be lucky for methane, or CH4, to be compounded in space, let alone entire protein chains smelling like a BBQ.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Mar 2014, 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests