1967 replies to this topic

[MID]

turbonium, on 13 October 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

Someone here is not understanding,

Recall my post, and your reply?... .


MID said..
"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"



Cite:


1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority

2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example..

http://dictionary.re...com/browse/cite

So, I did cite MID's quote.

You seem to know it, because you've changed your request -  first it was a quote, and now it's a post.

Clearly, you should try answering your own question....  



Just ignore the "..not visible.." part! Pretend it's not really there. Let;s move along, folks!

It is there. You know it. So deal with it.



I've even made it easy for you - up above in various posts, I've told you the answers.  So, LIST THEM OFF, and we'll start the debate.   Are you afraid to do that? If you don't, I will go ahead without you - and you won't be living that down...

It's your own list, maybe you are afraid of showing your own work? Scary list, eek!




Only the images from orbit. Not any of the images (claimed) from the lunar surface, ie: close-range.



No. That term came from your pro-Apollo side.

Didn't come from me!
Of course, I also don't care about your issue here, but, there is no Apollo side to this argument of yours.

There's your side; the side sans subject mnatter knowledge; the side that doesn't know pitch from yaw from thrust, the side that thinks the LM should've been tested on Earth, nd the side that believes all sorts of gobbeldy-gook!

I am on another side: the side that did this thing, the side that can teach you about how we did it, and what we did...the side that has frequently made you run away into illusions and attempt to use them as facts here!





Just for your own clarity, as you seem to be losing some.

And there is STILL this issue about you proving your case...

is that something to look forward to, or have you awakened to the fact that you can't really try that course?


aND YOU CAN RELAX...I don't actually expect much of an answer!

[MID]

A picture for turb:

This shows the Apollo 15 landing site, at Hadley Rille, before Dave Scott and Jim Irwin landed there.

Beautiful shot.

How did pictures like this happen?

[Obviousman]

Once more, science is validating the Apollo missions.

Quote

It's a big claim, but Washington University in St. Louis planetary scientist Frederic Moynier says his group has discovered evidence that the Moon was born in a flaming blaze of glory when a body the size of Mars collided with the early Earth.

The evidence might not seem all that impressive to a nonscientist: a tiny excess of a heavier variant of the element zinc in Moon rocks. But the enrichment probably arose because heavier zinc atoms condensed out of the roiling cloud of vaporized rock created by a catastrophic collision faster than lighter zinc atoms, and the remaining vapor escaped before it could condense.

Scientists have been looking for this kind of sorting by mass, called isotopic fractionation, since the Apollo missions first brought Moon rocks to Earth in the 1970s, and Moynier, PhD, assistant professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences in Arts and Sciences - together with PhD student, Randal Paniello, and colleague James Day of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography - are the first to find it.

The Moon rocks, geochemists discovered, while otherwise chemically similar to Earth rocks, were woefully short on volatiles (easily evaporated elements). A giant impact explained this depletion, whereas alternative theories for the Moon's origin did not.

But a creation event that allowed volatiles to slip away should also have produced isotopic fractionation. Scientists looked for fractionation but were unable to find it, leaving the impact theory of origin in limbo - neither proved nor disproved - for more than 30 years.

"The magnitude of the fractionation we measured in lunar rocks is 10 times larger than what we see in terrestrial and martian rocks," Moynier says, "so it's an important difference."
The data, published in the Oct. 18, 2012 issue of Nature, provide the first physical evidence for wholesale vaporization event since the discovery of volatile depletion in Moon rocks, Moynier says.

The Giant Impact Theory

According to the Giant Impact Theory, proposed in its modern form at a conference in 1975, Earth's moon was created in a apocalyptic collision between a planetary body called Theia (in Greek mythology the mother of the moon Selene) and the early Earth.

This collision was so powerful it is hard for mere mortals to imagine, but the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is thought to have been the size of Manhattan, whereas Theia is thought to have been the size of the planet Mars.

The smashup released so much energy it melted and vaporized Theia and much of the proto-Earth's mantle. The Moon then condensed out of the cloud of rock vapor, some of which also re-accreted to the Earth.

This seemingly outlandish idea gained traction because computer simulations showed a giant collision could have created a Earth-Moon system with the right orbital dynamics and because it explained a key characteristic of the Moon rocks.

Once geochemists got Moon rocks into the lab, they quickly realized that the rocks are depleted in what geochemists call "moderately volatile" elements. They are very poor in sodium, potassium, zinc, and lead, says Moynier.

"But if the rocks were depleted in volatiles because they had been vaporized during a giant impact, we should also have seen isotopic fractionation," he says. (Isotopes are variants of an element that have slightly different masses.)

"When a rock is melted and then evaporated, the light isotopes enter the vapor phase faster than the heavy isotopes, so you end up with a vapor enriched in the light isotopes and a solid residue enriched in the heavier isotopes. If you lose the vapor, the residue will be enriched in the heavy isotopes compared to the starting material," explains Moynier.

The trouble was that scientists who looked for isotopic fractionation couldn't find it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Asked how he felt when he saw the first results, Moynier says, "When you find something that is new and that has important ramifications, you want to be sure you haven't gotten anything wrong."

" I half expected results like those previously obtained for moderately volatile elements, so when we got something so different, we reproduced everything from scratch to make sure there were no mistakes because some of the procedures in the lab could conceivably fractionate the isotopes."

He also worried that fractionation could have occurred through localized processes on the moon, such as fire fountaining.

To make sure the effect was global, the team analyzed 20 samples of lunar rocks, including ones from the Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 15, and Apollo 17 missions - all of which went to different locations on the Moon - and one lunar meteorite.

To obtain the samples, which are stored in Houston at the Johnson Space Center, Moynier had to convince committee that controls access to them of the scientific merit of his project.
"'What we wanted were the basalts," Moynier says, "because they're the ones that came from inside the Moon and would be more representative of the Moon's composition."

But lunar basalts have different chemical compositions, Moynier says, including a wide range of titanium concentrations. Isotopes can also be fractionating during during the solidification of minerals from a melt. "The effect should be very, very tiny," he says, "but to make sure this wasn't what we were seeing, we analyzed both titanium-rich and titanium-poor basalts, which are at the two extremes of the range of chemical composition on the Moon."

The low and high titanium basalts had the same zinc isotopic ratios.

For comparison, they also analyzed 10 Martian meteorits. A few had been found in Antarctica but the others were from the collections at the Field Museum, the Smithsonian Institution and the Vatican.

Mars, like the Earth, is very rich in volatile elements, Moynier says. "Because there is a decent amount of zinc inside the rocks, we only needed a tiny bit to test for fractionation, and so these samples were easier to get."

What it means

Compared to terrestrial or martian rocks, the lunar rocks Moynier and his team analyzed have much lower concentrations of zinc but are enriched in the heavy isotopes of zinc.
Earth and Mars have isotopic compositions like those of chondritic meteorites, which are thought to represent the original composition of the cloud of gas and dust from which the solar system formed.

The simplest explanation for these differences is that conditions during or after the formation of the Moon led to more extensive volatile loss and isotopic fractionation than was experienced by Earth or Mars.

The isotopic homogeneity of the lunar materials, in turn, suggests that isotopic fractionation resulted from a large-scale process rather than one that operated only locally.

Given these lines of evidence, the most likely large-scale event is wholesale melting during the formation of the Moon. The zinc isotopic data therefore supports the theory that a giant impact gave rise to the Earth-Moon system.

"The work also has implications for the origin of the Earth," Moynier points out, "because the origin of the Moon was a big part of the origin of the Earth."

Without the stabilizing influence of the Moon, the Earth would probably be a very different sort of place. Planetary sciences think the Earth would spin more rapidly, days would be shorter, weather more violent, and climate more chaotic and extreme. In fact it might have been such a harsh world, it would have been unfit for the evolution of our favorite species: us

[turbonium]

MID, on 13 October 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

I asked you to show the the evidence of wires in the Apollo footage or on a photo.
This isn't an answer.   It is more of your boring litany about things you know nothing about!

Where are the cables?
Any evidence of their hook ups to the suits?

Of course you can't see them.  Not because they've been mystically erased from the images, but because they didn't exist, as didn't the people above Geno there, that would've been necessary, nor the equipment necessary...can't see that anywhere either....

You first asked me...

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

If this was a fake scene, turb, how did John Young do this???
On Earth, 1 g, a 180+ pound suit and PLSS strapped to him, and he jumped a foot and a half off the ground!  How'd he get that 300 pounds up off the ground like that???

I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Now, if you consider that to be "mystically erased",  you clearly need a reality check.

I've shown you that wires have been edited out of films since 1950. What is so 'mystical' about it??!?  

You can't see wires because they remove them in the editing process . Whether it's a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick, or it's a big-budget 1968 sci-fi movie,  or it's Apollo-era photos/film clips....the wires are removed by editing.

It would be called sorcery, or 'mystical' - in 17th century England. A primitive tribe may believe it's a gift from the gods.  

But what is your excuse for it?

[turbonium]

MID, on 14 October 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

A picture for turb:

This shows the Apollo 15 landing site, at Hadley Rille, before Dave Scott and Jim Irwin landed there.

Beautiful shot.

How did pictures like this happen?

"Happen"? Can you be more specific?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Evidence please! If you can't provide the evidence, you have no  case!

It is peculiar that you would make up such a thing when countries have already reported they have tracked Apollo moon flights and photographed Apollo landing sites on the moon.

[pbarosso]

yeah, i wish these moon landing hoax people would just stop, they are embarassing themselves...

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 20 October 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Evidence please! If you can't provide the evidence, you have no  case!

The only valid evidence is being held under wraps by NASA, as usual. That is, the original frames.

NASA won't show us the evidence, for some reason....

[Chrlzs]

I am disappointed - but not in the least surprised - to see that Turbonium, like every other Apollo denier before him, is incapable of debate.

Completely and utterly.  From the very basic requirement of a having at least a passing understanding of the topic, to the use of every logical fallacy that he can lay his hands onto, and the final nail-in-the-coffin of completely contentless (and pointless) posts that include nothing whatsoever except handwaved opinions based on complete ignorance.. yes, he ticks all the boxes.

Some time back I posted an invitation and several hints on how he could back up the ignorant claim about the visibility of regolith disturbances (not 'haloes').  His response was to tell me to go back and post the basic information.  The Burden of Proof isn't with those of us who agree with the historical record.  It also isn't a concept he can just wave away - if you do, you have already lost the debate.  For that reason, despite giving him a couple of last chances, I'm over it.  Turbonium's posts are worthless, and if he is not trolling, his ignorance of this topic and determination to avoid any structured analysis of anything is downright embarrassing and, frankly, disgraceful.  He seems to think this place is his blog.

Thing is, ignorance is not a sin.  I'm quite ignorant on archeology, neurosurgery, even String Theory, f'rinstance.  That's why you won't see me either trolling or making an absolute fool of myself on forums dedicated to those topics.  If I was to post there, I would humbly ask questions of those wiser than myself (which would probably be most everyone on those forums) and listen to them.  I wouldn't make an even bigger fool of myself by using Youtube videos and joke sites like Aulis as if they were referential...

Ignorance is ONLY a sin when it is used deliberately - and given his responses to me, and the one quick example below to MID, I have no option other than to believe that is what he is  doing here - he is not here for discussion or listening to common sense.

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

So, despite *using* Apollo photos as 'evidence' of a hoax, Turbonium thinks that they are all edited - that way of course he can pointlessly argue anything, including that pink unicorns were edited out of all the shots..  What a ridiculous statement, and what ignorant hypocrisy.

Anyway, he is now onto my (very short) ignore list.  The less feeding he gets, the better, I think.  Perhaps in future if anyone must respond, just link to the debunks on apollohoax.net or clavius.org..?

[Czero 101]

Chrlzs, on 20 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

The less feeding he gets, the better, I think.  Perhaps in future if anyone must respond, just link to the debunks on apollohoax.net or clavius.org..?

True enough, and at least with ApolloHoax, they can go back in to the old site's archives and find all the threads Turbs abandoned, and all the questions he dodged and left unanswered... more proof of his complete and utter lack of character, integrity and intellectual honesty (as if more than what has been evidenced here was needed).





Cz


EDITED for typos...

Edited by Czero 101, 20 October 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[turbonium]

pbarosso, on 20 October 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

yeah, i wish these moon landing hoax people would just stop, they are embarassing themselves...

The hoax is not embarassing to discuss, it's simply the truth. It's a rather sad, dismal truth, for sure.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

The only valid evidence is being held under wraps by NASA, as usual. That is, the original frames.

That doesn't work. Since when did the Soviet Union come under the control of NASA during Apollo moon missions? Remember, the Soviet Union confirmed the Apollo moon missions as well. I guess you missed this before, so here it is again.

Quote

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

Quote

NASA won't show us the evidence, for some reason....

Evidence please! If you can't post the evidence, you have no case. This photo proves you wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 October 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

The hoax is not embarassing to discuss, it's simply the truth. It's a rather sad, dismal truth, for sure.

What hoax? You haven't provided a shred of evidence of a hoax. In fact, this photo alone proves you incorrect.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 October 2012 - 06:14 AM.

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

The hoax is not embarassing to discuss, it's simply the truth. It's a rather sad, dismal truth, for sure.

Well, you're partly right.

The Hoax Theory isn't embarrassing. Its patently false, indefensible, not supported by any type of logic or evidence and is the product of willful ignorance, blatant lies and misrepresentations, shoddy or (mostly) non-existent research and pure intellectual laziness... so pretty much everything you have proven you stand for, Turbs...

YOU, Turbs.... YOU are embarrassing, and I'm pretty sure that is the point pbarosso was making.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 20 October 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[turbonium]

Chrlzs, on 20 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

I am disappointed - but not in the least surprised - to see that Turbonium, like every other Apollo denier before him, is incapable of debate.

Completely and utterly.  From the very basic requirement of a having at least a passing understanding of the topic, to the use of every logical fallacy that he can lay his hands onto, and the final nail-in-the-coffin of completely contentless (and pointless) posts that include nothing whatsoever except handwaved opinions based on complete ignorance.. yes, he ticks all the boxes.

Some time back I posted an invitation and several hints on how he could back up the ignorant claim about the visibility of regolith disturbances (not 'haloes').  His response was to tell me to go back and post the basic information.  The Burden of Proof isn't with those of us who agree with the historical record.  It also isn't a concept he can just wave away - if you do, you have already lost the debate.  For that reason, despite giving him a couple of last chances, I'm over it.  Turbonium's posts are worthless, and if he is not trolling, his ignorance of this topic and determination to avoid any structured analysis of anything is downright embarrassing and, frankly, disgraceful.  He seems to think this place is his blog.

Thing is, ignorance is not a sin.  I'm quite ignorant on archeology, neurosurgery, even String Theory, f'rinstance.  That's why you won't see me either trolling or making an absolute fool of myself on forums dedicated to those topics.  If I was to post there, I would humbly ask questions of those wiser than myself (which would probably be most everyone on those forums) and listen to them.  I wouldn't make an even bigger fool of myself by using Youtube videos and joke sites like Aulis as if they were referential...

Ignorance is ONLY a sin when it is used deliberately - and given his responses to me, and the one quick example below to MID, I have no option other than to believe that is what he is  doing here - he is not here for discussion or listening to common sense.

You don't even have a position to debate against.

The issue is about the supposed 'halo' phenomenon. You didn't even know what phenomenon I was talking about. And then you thought I came up with the term 'halo', which is false.

You've never explained your position on the phenomenon. I don't know if you even have one. You just asked me a few yes/no questions, so I played along and replied. That got us nowhere.

You listed factors involved, but none of them accounted for the so-called 'halo' phenomenon.

And here you are, still trying to debate me on the issue?

I asked you for sources on this phenomenon, after you claimed everything from pro-Apollo group had been sourced. You remeber that? Sure. I'm still waiting for you to show me these sources.

Tell me your actual position on the 'halo'phenomenon, if you really want a serious debate.

Or do you even have a position on this issue?