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 ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 06:25

SydneyPSIder wrote: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.

Bullsh!t. Show me one peer reviewed article that Jarrah has written. And no, his videos don't "go along way as a 'document'." They go nowhere as they have no scientific basis to them.
Also bullsh!t is that no one would "shut him down" if his thoughts had any validity to them whatsoever. That's why they are peer reviewed. Someone writes an article and others review and either support or show evidence to the contrary. He doesn't do that because he knows his views are outright wrong. I'd say he enjoys his fame, but the last video you posted of him had all of 450 views. Not exactly earth shattering support.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 06:29

he'd be shut down. but not to say he won't attempt it in the future, or hasn't attempted it in the past. and everything is a 'document', btw.

now, back to the concentration of inferred polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in deep space?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby Misha » 03 Mar 2014, 06:49

SydneyPSIder wrote:he'd be shut down. but not to say he won't attempt it in the future, or hasn't attempted it in the past. and everything is a 'document', btw.

now, back to the concentration of inferred polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in deep space?


Now we are getting to the crux of it. If I may offer a way of understanding why we don't have peer-reviewed exposes on the "moon hoax" and critical unbiased research then we might be able to better understand the hows and whys by reading Donna LaFramboise's book - "The Delinquent Teenager." Yes, this centers around the man-made global warming debate. My reasoning for recommending this book to you folks is not the global warming issue at hand. LaFramboise's book illustrates the POLITICAL bureaucratic control which funds the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Policy on Climate Control). Now plug in Jarrah's research under the same constraints and we can see how the control of information is bought and paid for.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 07:04

SydneyPSIder wrote:he'd be shut down. but not to say he won't attempt it in the future, or hasn't attempted it in the past. and everything is a 'document', btw.

It is a document, but barely. I was thinking that perhaps some of the people on here aren't familiar with how to write a research paper. Most universities in America as well as around the world use a format called APA Style. Here's a good website with information on how to write in this style as well as information as to what constitutes valid references. It's a huge website, but you can begin at this page:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/04/
It will also help show why I don't think that references to people such as Jarrah White, David Irving or Icke are very good references.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby Misha » 03 Mar 2014, 07:09

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:he'd be shut down. but not to say he won't attempt it in the future, or hasn't attempted it in the past. and everything is a 'document', btw.

It is a document, but barely. I was thinking that perhaps some of the people on here aren't familiar with how to write a research paper. Most universities in America as well as around the world use a format called APA Style. Here's a good website with information on how to write in this style as well as information as to what constitutes valid references. It's a huge website, but you can begin at this page:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/04/
It will also help show why I don't think that references to people such as Jarrah White, David Irving or Icke are very good references.


You're dissembling, ProfWag. To even put David Icke who is nothing but an anthologist in the same camp as Irving or even Jarrah White is classic bathwaterism. C'mon you can do better than that....
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 07:15

Misha wrote:
Now we are getting to the crux of it. If I may offer a way of understanding why we don't have peer-reviewed exposes on the "moon hoax" and critical unbiased research Now plug in Jarrah's research under the same constraints and we can see how the control of information is bought and paid for.

No Misha, the reason we don't have peer-reviewed exposes on the moon hoax is because no peers support it. The paper couldn't be written because the scientific evidence wouldn't support the conclusion that we didn't go to the moon. There is absolutely zero scientific basis behind the moon hoax belief. I would absolutely LOVE to read a research paper on the Apollo missions that conclude that we didn't actually land on the moon. Problem is, if one is being unbiased and truly has the theory on the outset, the scientific results would show that we went. Academically speaking, an unbiased research paper that supports a moon hoax would be virtually impossible. Of course, we must remember that the paper couldn't use photographs as evidence that we didn't go since we've already shown that just because a photograph could be shown to be faked has absolutely no basis in the scientific and mathematical technology to actually go. That's what the research paper would have to be about--proving that the technology was impossible. And, as we already know, that would be quite difficult to prove.
The only people who believe that we didn't go to the moon are those who prefer to live in a world of conspiracy rather than reality. IMHO.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby Misha » 03 Mar 2014, 07:35

Sigh. Now this is why I would like you to read LaFramboise's book. Follow the money. It is the money that keeps people employed. No brainer.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Mar 2014, 10:37

we all know profwag is a bathwaterist boondoggler at times. or a boondoggling bathwaterist at other times.

he still hasn't extracted the concentration of these alleged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in space from the 'inferential' paper he cited.

Then there's this line from the wonderful pop sci article he cited:

Once you leave our galaxy, the smells can get really interesting. In dark pockets of the universe, molecular clouds full of tiny dust particles host a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.


Right. You leave our galaxy going hundreds of light years out into deep space, and we/us/them/the pop sci author somehow 'knows' there is 'a veritable smorgasbord of odors, from wafts of sweet sugar to the rotten-egg stench of sulfur.' Sulphur I could go along with, in a pinch, but sweet sugar? Well, which one, perchance? Glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose? Possibly even aspartame? Who's to say Donny Rumsfeld from Searle Pharmaceuticals hasn't been out there seeding the stars with sugar replacements. And whole vast clouds of them to boot. How do we know this? Because the pop sci author has been out past the edge of our galaxy and smelt it for himself. No, no, wait, they did a spectrographic analysis of the universe from 1,000 light years away. Apparently, a whole star is made of fairy floss too.

Image
Glucose (dextrose) molecule - not a polycyclic aromatic btw

When a star explodes and chucks out huge gobs of matter in the low order of the periodic table which then turns into higher order elements through fusion processes, and then start to stick together into planets and moons under the force of gravity, it's hard to picture a few vestigial atoms of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen drifting around in the infinite vast depths of space getting together to form complex sugars, particularly in the complete absence of heat energy when an endothermic reaction is required to form a molecule -- unlike conditions on the much warmer earth, for instance.

So 'dark pockets of the universe' with no stars exploding to even create more complex elements. And no heat energy to let the non-existent elements react to form complex organic molecules that smell like BBQing meat or even honey.

And apparently space is full of soot and burnt stuff that will stick to your clothes, there's a choking cloud of the stuff everywhere you turn. which is why shots from the Hubble telescope in space are crystal clear, the clarity being the reason the telescope was launched in the first place.

This article is a brilliant example of how NASA are helping to fake the discourse and make people believe in the 'reality' of anything they say. They seed rubbish populist magazines with rubbish articles like that one to lend credibility to their supposed space travels. Any bare pass grade first year US BS student would know this stuff is BS, or they should. This article appears to be a delightful flight of fancy by a third grader. It might come out as an illustrated childrens book soon. Or, more to the point, I'm very intrigued to know who wrote it and what their connections are.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby ProfWag » 12 Jun 2014, 19:37

SydneyPSIder wrote:
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'.

"Space has a smell. And I don't mean inside the space station," he wrote. "When a visiting vehicle docks with the space station, there is 'space' between the two vehicles. Once the pressure is equalized and the hatch is opened, you have this metallic ionization-type smell. It's quite unique and very distinct."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/space- ... d=24070730
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Jul 2014, 16:57

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
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'.

"Space has a smell. And I don't mean inside the space station," he wrote. "When a visiting vehicle docks with the space station, there is 'space' between the two vehicles. Once the pressure is equalized and the hatch is opened, you have this metallic ionization-type smell. It's quite unique and very distinct."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/space- ... d=24070730


Fascinating. So is it an organic BBQ smell implying massively cross-linked complex aromatic hydrocarbons or metallic? Because both conflicting claims have been made by supposedly credible participants. We're being BSed and flim-flammed here by at least one party, if not both. As for the guy who insists the vacuum of space has a smell once a space is filled with air from a tank, who knows? Let's face it, 2 docking craft have a very small amount of vacuum space between them when they dock. The tiny number of particles that might exist in that space may well be ionised and stick to surfaces removing them from the space. This guy claims that when the seal is made and air is allowed into the vacuum space, or pumped in from tanks, that he can smell an 'ionised' smell. Does that mean space smells like that? Who can say. Could be from either of the craft, or the air coming out of the tanks from storage, etc. I'm interested to know how oxygen is supplied continuously for months to the ISS in fact and how it's produced on board... then is there a mix of nitrogen and CO2 included also, and is it at 1 atm? (See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st13nov_1/ for a 2000 treatment by NASA of this question, although they were workign on systems at that time to be delivered in 2005. Suffice it to say that pressurised oxygen in tanks was used a certain amount.)

I'm not sure how you can recognise a smell as 'metallic' and yet it is also 'quite unique and distinct'. I mean, it must smell like something else metallic, surely, wherever we go to inhale metallic air. Or is it just ozone, O3, perhaps? I used to go to steel foundries as a kid, full of molten metal and that had a kind of 'metallic' smell, just like angle grinding metal produces etc. So is it the same as that for comparison? Then it wouldn't be 'unique and distinct', of course. Remember one of the two craft has just shot up from earth through the atmosphere and the ozone layer. Remember they're only flying in low earth orbit just above the bulk of the atmosphere, and below the van Allen belts, which serve as a form of reservoir of ionising radiation. So they're nowhere near the vacuum of deep space, they're in a special zone between the bulk of the atmosphere and a shedload of harnessed radioactive energy, less than 160 km from the earth's surface. Quite a different thing from claiming to stand on the moon 250,000 km from earth. (Which they got to in a day's travelling time from that super underpowered Saturn V rocket.) It's what's called 'inner space', a zone which man has never travelled beyond in history, it seems. Also, if the 'astronots' had dragged in lots of moon dust on their feet, it implies the moon dust must have contained water, which it didn't, or was otherwise pretty sticky somehow. Or, if you were going to fake it on earth, you might use some kind of fine cement powder or talcum powder and water to create those 'moon boot footprints' to convince them to hold the exact shape of a bootprint. Here's Jarrah White's attempt at creating a moonboot footprint using some actual purchased moondust simulacrum he got on mail order:



Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 16 Jul 2014, 09:03, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 13 Jul 2014, 16:35

Here's a very disturbing analysis pointing out a lot of the fakery in NASA's supposed 'moon shots' and videos -- lots of inconsistencies and repeated backdrops from all angles, etc etc -- written in very colloquial language. When an analysis can be done this simply, it makes the NASA photographic forgers look like complete amateurs -- no consistency in shots, re-use of foregrounds and backgrounds in different shots, etc. It seems once they fabricated a football field sized foreground simulacrum of the moon's surface with a few craters dug in the sand they used, etc, they had to keep re-using them over and over and mixed and matched them with the backdrop backgrounds. It's not clear whether the addition of backgrounds came later with photographic touch-ups, whether they used a backdrop screen with a projector as suggested by the Russian 3D stereoscopic analysis, or whether they used large sheets of plastic as a projection technique a la 2001: a space odyssey. Or perhaps a combination of all 3 as time progressed and the fakery got more sophisticated.

http://apolloscam.atspace.co.uk/

This is some linked footage I was looking for that I'd lost track of showing a camera traversing the fake moonscapes prepared at Langley Research Centre:

SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby Scepcop » 30 Jul 2014, 11:08

The laser reflectors left on the moon's surface, which are touted by Apollo believers are hard evidence of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not. First, lasers were already being bounced off the moon's surface before the Apollo landings were alleged to take place. The Dec 1966 issue of National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT were doing just that. In fact, radio waves were being bounced off the moon as early as the 1950's. Here is a screen shot of the article in that issue describing it: (for some reason, I am not able to embed it)

http://s9.postimage.org/a10sw4qd9/Natio ... _small.jpg

Second, laser reflectors were dropped on the moon by unmanned probes by both the US and Soviet Union. Here are two examples of Soviet unmanned probes leaving laser reflectors, as described by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2

Thus this argument is not hard evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo Moon Landings. For more info about the laser reflectors, see Jarrah White's FAQ: http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html and his YouTube videos entitled “Moonfaker laser reflectors”.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby Emily » 01 Aug 2014, 14:40

SydneyPSIder wrote:
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.


Here is a link to the article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4080v2.pdf

"Therefore, we conclude that, despite rather low binding energies, PAHs in the diffuse ISM are heavily decorated with excess hydrogens. Obser- vations of astronomical IR emission sources, on the other hand, illustrate that the radiation from a nearby UV-visible source can easily strip away the excess hydrogenation, leaving almost purely aromatic molecules. At best, PAHs with methy- lene groups (i.e., only CH2, not CH or CH3) are present in some of those objects, especially in proto-planetary nebulae.

"The simultaneous presence of other molecular entities, containing functional hydrocarbon groups, which are likewise compatible with the subfeatures and spectroscopic constraints of the 3.4 μm complex, cannot be ruled out. However, the average molecular structure that we proposed to be abundantly present in the diffuse ISM, composed of an aromatic core with a mainly aliphatic rim, is also compatible with observations (and abundance constraints) in the UV. Such molecular units can account not only for the absorption bands in the IR, but also for the UV bump at 217.5 nm and the smooth ex- tinction curve, that is observed for wavelengths shorter than 400 nm (Steglich et al. 2010, 2012)."

Basically, samples of interstellar medium (in this case gas) contain aromatic molecules within the hydrocarbon group. When this molecular group is exposed to UV light, chemical reactions strip away the hydrocarbon units along the edge of the molecular group, freeing the aromatic molecule. Space does smell.

I'm confused by your (I'm guessing sarcastic?) response to the previous poster. We are talking about tiny molecules here. Large enough to be detected by the nose, yes, but not anywhere near large enough to cause visible "soot" or anything like that. Even if gravity pulled the molecules down (which I doubt, we would not be able to smell it here because our air is full of other compounds, many of whom are aromatic as well. In space, the molecules are so diffuse that it is easier to identify one particular type of molecule because in all likelihood, that was the only aromatic around.

As far as them sensing it only in certain locations, that may be a result of the molecular group's needing a certain amount of UV light (and a specific type of UV light) for the chemical reaction to occur. You have to be at the right place at the right time. As for them not appearing on other space objects like moon sand/rocks, etc - Just because this molecule appears to also be in space doesn't mean it's everywhere in space. Different smells could be a result of different molecules degrading from the UV light. There are many possible explanations simply because there is limited research on this phenomenon.
Emily
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 06:46

Re: Definitive Proof we went to the Moon!

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Aug 2014, 15:40

And what level is detectable by the human nose? And we know that the sense of human smell is not a particularly sensitive thing compared to many other species. Remember we now have a range of alleged space smells from metallic to BBQs to sugar! Some outside of the galaxy according to one article cited by prof! You obviously didn't read the wondrous musings of one enlightened space author quoted above who assures us that in deep space 'outside of the galaxy' there are clouds of sugar and sulphur -- despite the likelihood that in the absence of nearby decayed stars throwing out heavier elements as a fusion process there is even less likelihood of finding elements drifting in space -- and certainly nobody has been there to find out, and there is no spectrography possible at that distance with those concentrations.

Given the manned moon landings were a hoax, which account of 'space smells' are we supposed to believe? But sure, I can accept there's a few elements floating around out there made in the same process that made the planets. Although most of them are generally sucked in by gravity to a larger body, which is how the planets, moons, dwarf planets, asteroids and comets formed, using the essential property of all mass and matter which is possessing the 'property' of gravity.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron