ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Luke Pemberton on December 29, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
-
The composition of soil along the rim of a 450-m diameter fresh crater at the Chang′e-3 (CE-3) landing site has been reported.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151222/ncomms9880/full/ncomms9880.html
The wording of the article rather blows a hole in Blunder's argument that remote sensing and the discovery of soils with a different composition to the Apollo samples proves the Apollo samples are fake. As if the Moon should show no geological variation. ???
In fact, the paper confirms the scientists compared their new findings to the Apollo samples as the recognised benchmark. It makes most interesting read.
-
The composition of soil along the rim of a 450-m diameter fresh crater at the Chang′e-3 (CE-3) landing site has been reported.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151222/ncomms9880/full/ncomms9880.html
The wording of the article rather blows a hole in Blunder's argument that remote sensing and the discovery of soils with a different composition to the Apollo samples proves the Apollo samples are fake. As if the Moon should show no geological variation. ???
In fact, the paper confirms the scientists compared their new findings to the Apollo samples as the recognised benchmark. It makes most interesting read.
And you expected differently? :) He is such a loser.
EDIT: to add question
Do you or know how far from any Apollo landings the Chang′e-3 (CE-3) landing site is?
-
I happen to be a genuine psychic and I predict that he'll either ignore the article, quote it out of context and claim it supports his viewpoint, or claim the Chinese are in on the cover up.
-
I happen to be a genuine psychic and I predict that he'll either ignore the article, quote it out of context and claim it supports his viewpoint, or claim the Chinese are in on the cover up.
Are you sure you don't want to hedge your bets? ;)
-
Do you or know how far from any Apollo landings the Chang′e-3 (CE-3) landing site is?
According to a post I found here https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131214141214AApLmFc the distances to the various Apollo sites are:
Apollo 11: 1,752 km
Apollo 12: 1,433 km
Apollo 14: 1,449 km
Apollo 15: 787 km
Apollo 16: 1,875 km
Apollo 17: 1,452 km
-
Do you or know how far from any Apollo landings the Chang′e-3 (CE-3) landing site is?
According to a post I found here https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131214141214AApLmFc the distances to the various Apollo sites are:
Apollo 11: 1,752 km
Apollo 12: 1,433 km
Apollo 14: 1,449 km
Apollo 15: 787 km
Apollo 16: 1,875 km
Apollo 17: 1,452 km
Thanks, I ran onto a YT'er that claimed that the Chang′e-3 did not find any evidence of Apollo, of Couse not it's a bit difficult to "see" something 800 KM away!
-
I happen to be a genuine psychic and I predict that he'll either ignore the article, quote it out of context and claim it supports his viewpoint, or claim the Chinese are in on the cover up.
I just chuckled to a thought about a Jovian conspiracy theorist, Fascinating Faux-Pas who claims recent scouting trips to Earth were fake. His evidence: one landing team in southern Finland found granite and bit uranium, second some limestone in SE England and third lots of basalt in Iceland. And all this from shadow side of a pebble in outer parts of the third ring... :) :P 8)
-
I happen to be a genuine psychic and I predict that he'll either ignore the article, quote it out of context and claim it supports his viewpoint, or claim the Chinese are in on the cover up.
I vote for the "it would support his viewpoint.
-
The wording of the article rather blows a hole in Blunder's argument that remote sensing and the discovery of soils with a different composition to the Apollo samples proves the Apollo samples are fake. As if the Moon should show no geological variation. ???
Jarrah got very excited about Chang'e 3's initial uncalibrated soil spectroscopy which showed a high titanium reading. He seemed unaware that Chang'e 3 missed its intended landing site in the Sinus Iridium (Bay of Rainbows) and landed in the main body of the Mare Imbrium where there are distinct areas of differing titanium concentrations. The actual landing site is in an area of higher titanium concentration, whereas the Bay of Rainbows shows a lower titanium reading - so Jarrah's claim that the Chang'e 3 soil analysis casts doubt on Apollo geology is unfounded. The various differing geologic areas in the Mare Imbrium were identified and mapped by the Clementine mission - so Jarrah of course has claimed that data is fake too.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/CosmoSparks/Dec13/mare-basalts-Change-3.html
It's also worth mentioning that Jarrah has blatantly avoided, when challenged, actually admitting that the Chang'e 3 mission even landed on the Moon (he has previously claimed that China is faking its manned space program in a swimming pool). So Jarrah is claiming that Chang'e 3 scientific data contradicts Apollo while simultaneously prevaricating about the authenticity of Chang'e 3 itself. Of course if he does admit that Chang'e 3 is on the Moon then he'll need to explain why his hero Kaysing was so wrong about the photographic visibility of stars and the effect of a lander's descent engine on the lunar surface. Other aspects of the moon hoax theory are busted by the Yutu rover's sharp rover tracks in the lunar surface, and the clear shadow-side visibility of the lander itself. Jarrah has studiously avoided answering such questions.
In summary: Jarrah claims that 1. Apollo geology is fake 2. Clementine data is fake 3. Chang'e 3 uncalibrated data is genuine but the mission itself might be fake. And he didn't even know where Chang'e 3 had actually landed, so his claims about titanium soil concentrations are irrelevant and do not in any case contradict Apollo.
-
The wording of the article rather blows a hole in Blunder's argument that remote sensing and the discovery of soils with a different composition to the Apollo samples proves the Apollo samples are fake. As if the Moon should show no geological variation. ???
Jarrah got very excited about Chang'e 3's initial uncalibrated soil spectroscopy which showed a high titanium reading. He seemed unaware that Chang'e 3 missed its intended landing site in the Sinus Iridium (Bay of Rainbows) and landed in the main body of the Mare Imbrium where there are distinct areas of differing titanium concentrations. The actual landing site is in an area of higher titanium concentration, whereas the Bay of Rainbows shows a lower titanium reading - so Jarrah's claim that the Chang'e 3 soil analysis casts doubt on Apollo geology is unfounded. The various differing geologic areas in the Mare Imbrium were identified and mapped by the Clementine mission - so Jarrah of course has claimed that data is fake too.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/CosmoSparks/Dec13/mare-basalts-Change-3.html
It's also worth mentioning that Jarrah has blatantly avoided, when challenged, actually admitting that the Chang'e 3 mission even landed on the Moon (he has previously claimed that China is faking its manned space program in a swimming pool). So Jarrah is claiming that Chang'e 3 scientific data contradicts Apollo while simultaneously prevaricating about the authenticity of Chang'e 3 itself. Of course if he does admit that Chang'e 3 is on the Moon then he'll need to explain why his hero Kaysing was so wrong about the photographic visibility of stars and the effect of a lander's descent engine on the lunar surface. Other aspects of the moon hoax theory are busted by the Yutu rover's sharp rover tracks in the lunar surface, and the clear shadow-side visibility of the lander itself. Jarrah has studiously avoided answering such questions.
In summary: Jarrah claims that 1. Apollo geology is fake 2. Clementine data is fake 3. Chang'e 3 uncalibrated data is genuine but the mission itself might be fake. And he didn't even know where Chang'e 3 had actually landed, so his claims about titanium soil concentrations are irrelevant and do not in any case contradict Apollo.
IMO Blunder is irrelevant! :)
EDIT:
I really liked your video linked for those who may not have seen it.
-
I really liked your video linked for those who may not have seen it.
My YT videos have long been deleted, from YT and my computer, and I won't be making another video ever again. When I opened this link I was amazed how it sounded like my voice on my old videos.
I can assure the CTs who make that connection, I am not BertieSlack and I did not make that video, despite the uncanny similarity between our voices.
-
My YT videos have long been deleted, from YT and my computer, and I won't be making another video ever again. When I opened this link I was amazed how it sounded like my voice on my old videos.
I can assure the CTs who make that connection, I am not BertieSlack and I did not make that video, despite the uncanny similarity between our voices.
I remember Astrobrant2 telling me that you & I have very similar voices shortly after I started posting YT videos about three years ago. This must've been quite soon after Jawwah had used bogus DMCA claims to have your account closed, so I never actually saw any of your videos myself. It's a shame that I won't see them now.
-
I really liked your video linked for those who may not have seen it.
My YT videos have long been deleted, from YT and my computer, and I won't be making another video ever again. When I opened this link I was amazed how it sounded like my voice on my old videos.
I can assure the CTs who make that connection, I am not BertieSlack and I did not make that video, despite the uncanny similarity between our voices.
The comment was for Bertie as I don't think I ever saw any of your videos, bad for me. I'm sure your did a great job.
-
IMO Blunder is irrelevant! :)
I tend to agree with you - he gets far too many references for such a poor fool.
I was actually watching one of his latest money grabbing videos when I caught this very quick section. He posts a screenshot of a sale of his Nasa Mooned America book(written by the only Rene that actually causes indigestion) and it shows a transaction for $75.
http://imgur.com/LOcyv1w
It always seems to boil down to money with these cranks.
-
IMO Blunder is irrelevant! :)
I tend to agree with you - he gets far too many references for such a poor f tool.
I was actually watching one of his latest money grabbing videos when I caught this very quick section. He posts a screenshot of a sale of his Nasa Mooned America book(written by the only Rene that actually causes indigestion) and it shows a transaction for $75.
http://imgur.com/LOcyv1w
It always seems to boil down to money with these cranks.
FTFY :)
This is an example of the double edged sword of YouTube's monetization program; for every quality channel such as CrashCourse, Veritasium etc. there's at least one nutjob or charlatan trying to make a buck off their bovine excrement videos.
-
It's also worth mentioning that Jarrah has blatantly avoided, when challenged, actually admitting that the Chang'e 3 mission even landed on the Moon (he has previously claimed that China is faking its manned space program in a swimming pool). So Jarrah is claiming that Chang'e 3 scientific data contradicts Apollo while simultaneously prevaricating about the authenticity of Chang'e 3 itself. Of course if he does admit that Chang'e 3 is on the Moon then he'll need to explain why his hero Kaysing was so wrong about the photographic visibility of stars and the effect of a lander's descent engine on the lunar surface. Other aspects of the moon hoax theory are busted by the Yutu rover's sharp rover tracks in the lunar surface, and the clear shadow-side visibility of the lander itself. Jarrah has studiously avoided answering such questions.
Someone ought to make a video about that for YT. Preferably someone that JW watches. Maybe AstroBrant, or someone else who JW has filed false DMCA claims against...
Wouldn't that be interesting?
-
I was actually watching one of his latest money grabbing videos when I caught this very quick section. He posts a screenshot of a sale of his Nasa Mooned America book(written by the only Rene that actually causes indigestion) and it shows a transaction for $75.
http://imgur.com/LOcyv1w
They are fools for thinking that there's any gravitas in the book. They're even bigger fools for parting with money for that book, as it's freely available on the internet.
-
This must've been quite soon after Jawwah had used bogus DMCA claims to have your account closed, so I never actually saw any of your videos myself. It's a shame that I won't see them now.
He never got my account closed. He removed many videos using bogus DMCA claims. The reality is that he managed to make a mess of using Newton's laws and arrived at a false conclusion by introducing 2 degrees of freedom into his math, whereby he compared apples with pears. I explained to him that the only way he could compare apples with apples was by changing the density of the rock he used in his calculation, which of course he cannot do in reality.
He tried to mock me claiming that I said 'one can change the density of rock.' I never actually said or implied this, I was simply highlighting his folly by using parametric excursions to highlight his error, and one of those excursions linked to an hypothetical change of rock density to make his comparison fair. Many people pointed this out to Jarrah, but he did not understand the point being made.
I don't really care to be honest, as I know in my own mind he screwed up his math and physics, and I know just about everything he has submitted as evidence for his idiot beliefs is flawed. Making videos to counter his nonsense is an utter waste of time as when he's wrong he won't retract his nonsense or simply ignores counter evidence that he cannot debunk simply (SG Collins is a good example).
I decided to give up on video making after that point as it was pointless trying to convince him, time consuming, a poor format for debate and he also made veiled threats against a UK academic that he thought was me. I decided that someone so unstable and dangerous was best ignored. I can understand that the debate gets vociferous, but threatening to find someone after doc-dropping their details on a YT video over a conspiracy theory was rather worrying. After police involvement following his threats I was advised to remove myself from that forum.
-
...
I decided to give up on video making after that point as it was pointless trying to convince him, time consuming, a poor format for debate and he also made veiled threats against a UK academic that he thought was me. I decided that someone so unstable and dangerous was best ignored. I can understand that the debate gets vociferous, but threatening to find someone after doc-dropping their details on a YT video over a conspiracy theory was rather worrying. After police involvement following his threats I was advised to remove myself from that forum.
It is sad when the "debate" get so ugly that it turns into actual threats, I find myself wondering if one of the YT's will attempt to hack into me or at least attempt after heated exchanges, involving swearing name calling and indignation of some of those "critical" thinkers.
-
bknight, In your Reply #18 I think you messed up who said what in your use of the quote feature.
-
bknight, In your Reply #18 I think you messed up who said what in your use of the quote feature.
Yes, I did, but I can't fix it now.
-
After police involvement following his threats I was advised to remove myself from that forum.
Typical... Punish the victim mentality.
You did nothing wrong. You were not at fault, you were not responsible, and yet you had to give up your right to use a public venue?
That's several different kinds of wrong.