It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 101
377
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by MacAnkka

All in all,I'm getting tired of you people constantly claiming we couldn't have gone to the moon. Here's my response to that: the alternative is even more implausible! we couldn't have faked it! Please, at least try to prove me wrong.


Mate a number of us have asked for a detailed description of how you would hoax a moon landing, and the only thing the hoaxers have come up with is "oh it would be easy".


You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Foos, I'm not moving goalposts, here is the exact discussion that you keep running away from. Now please answer it.


Originally posted by Tomblvd
I think we're up to 5 or 6 times, but we'll soldier on.

So how about a response Foos?


Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd




2. How could the astronauts know what to expect in terms of lighting? Its not like they had been on the moon before.


We had unmanned landers on the surface taking pictures before Apollo. Also, it isn't hard to measure the amount of light on the moon's surface by telescope.
------

I'm speechless.





I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Why are you "speechless"? What specifically is wrong with that statement?

I'm not going to let you ignore this, I'll keep reposting it until I get an answer.


Sitll waiting for you to answer this question Foos. What are you running away from? It should be a simple response.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 


And how do you render the CSM invisible to optical telescopes and Soviet radar while it's in orbit? A Romulan cloaking device?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by DJW001]


Soviets saw it on their radar?
Show me where they say that. And I mean in the 1960's and 70's.

but anyway,

nobody needs to be in the CM. Nobody is really disputing that we cant send objects to the moon, just that we cant send people.


My God are you dense.

He is saying the Soviets would have tracked the stack while they were in orbit if your theory was true. Since they didn't, there is no evidence they tracked them. In addition, there has been ample evidence on this thread of HAMs and amateur astronomers tracking missions well into TLI. So your point, like all of your points, is worthless.

For God's sake think for a while, it really helps.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So whats the score now?

We got too many photos
We got any astronaut can see light flashes, you dont need to go to the moon for that.
We got Apollo was a fictional TV series, because live TV was more important than the launch.
We got moving flags
We got no dust on the footpads when every study, film shows that it should have happened.
We got JW's 30 odd questions unanswered.
We got motive & opportunity
And you got the footage where they faked the Earth in the cockpit.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 


And how do you render the CSM invisible to optical telescopes and Soviet radar while it's in orbit? A Romulan cloaking device?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by DJW001]


Soviets saw it on their radar?
Show me where they say that. And I mean in the 1960's and 70's.

but anyway,

nobody needs to be in the CM. Nobody is really disputing that we cant send objects to the moon, just that we cant send people.


My God are you dense.

He is saying the Soviets would have tracked the stack while they were in orbit if your theory was true. Since they didn't, there is no evidence they tracked them. In addition, there has been ample evidence on this thread of HAMs and amateur astronomers tracking missions well into TLI. So your point, like all of your points, is worthless.

For God's sake think for a while, it really helps.


Soviets would not have tracked them in LEO if they didnt know where to look.



TextIn the 1950s, Wernher von Braun and other rocket experts argued that, in addition to civilian tasks, the crew aboard a station could perform military reconnaissance. Von Braun also identified what he called a "terrifying" potential use for a station: "It can be converted into a terribly effective atomic bomb carrier."

During the 1960s, both the United States and Soviet Union began development of military space stations. The Pentagon's Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program aimed to create a two-person reconnaissance platform using hardware similar to that of NASA's Gemini missions.

But MOL, which received a go-ahead in 1965, was canceled in 1969. The program had made little progress, says Air Force historian Cargill Hall. "It was just about as far from its first flight as when it started."

During the same period, it also became increasingly apparent that automated systems -- spy satellites and ballistic missiles -- could handle military tasks initially thought to require a crew in orbit.

The idea of a piloted Air Force space station "never resurfaced" after MOL's cancellation, says Hall. Moreover, in his opinion, "the Air Force was spared thereafter the split that occurred in NASA between human spacecraft and automated spacecraft." NASA, says Hall, "has been in two camps, to this day."

The Soviet military, for its part, deployed several stations with reconnaissance capabilities in the 1970s. These were called Almaz, and were concealed within Salyut -- the Soviet civilian space station program.

However, the Soviets ceased the Almaz effort, apparently also finding no advantage over spy satellites.
www.space.com...

Here again we see Von Braun's true nature.
And we see that they couldnt even get MOL off the ground, but sending man to the moon, oh no problemo. LOL. Thats why the split between NASA. Once MOL was gone, Apollo as a cover was not needed, but so much went into it, they just went ahead anyway.
However, I think they simply used Apollo for reconnaissance. Maybe MOL was the cover...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Buzz didn't hit him because of a video


Yes we know, the topic being discussed is buzz's reaction to seeing the faked footage he was supposed to have filmed in the video above.


No, Buzz hit him just as Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief."

It could not be clearer.


No, he hit him when he put his hands on him.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So whats the score now?

We got too many photos


Debunked earlier in this thread.


We got any astronaut can see light flashes, you dont need to go to the moon for that.


But your own source states that it was first noticed by Apollo astronauts.


We got Apollo was a fictional TV series, because live TV was more important than the launch.


Complete non-sequiter. The reams of consistent scientific data was the important part.



We got moving flags


The fact that the flags obeyed simple harmonic motion, ie; pendulum-like behavior proves it was in a vacuum.


We got no dust on the footpads when every study, film shows that it should have happened.


Simply incorrect. The dust would move laterally. not vertically. You just made the "every study" up, didn't you?


We got JW's 30 odd questions unanswered.


All of his questions are odd. Some of them are outright laughable.


We got motive & opportunity


For an actual landing, yes.



And you got the footage where they faked the Earth in the cockpit.


Debunked previously.

So what do YOU make the score?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Von Braun also identified what he called a "terrifying" potential use for a station: "It can be converted into a terribly effective atomic bomb carrier."


So you think von Braun considering space based weapons to be terrifying makes him a bad man?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Von Braun also identified what he called a "terrifying" potential use for a station: "It can be converted into a terribly effective atomic bomb carrier."


So you think von Braun considering space based weapons to be terrifying makes him a bad man?


who says he was against it?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Aside to FoosM: Thank you for bringing the "light flash" literature to my attention. I was shooting from the hip when I naively assumed that phosgenic phenomena in space necessarily had the same causes in space as on Earth. I assumed that because the retina was only able to detect a very narrow range of light, the phenomenon must have been neurological in nature. It hadn't occurred to me that very energetic particles might strike the eye with a velocity greater than that of the propagation of light in the eye. This would indeed create Cherenkov radiation which would indeed be visible. I stand corrected. My statement was not wrong, merely incomplete. As for my statement about cosmic rays, I was referring to stereotypically high energy rays which are not generally captured by the magnetosphere.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



who says he was against it?


Where does it say he was in favor of it?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



who says he was against it?


Where does it say he was in favor of it?


Touche

Now lets see for sure:

news.google.com...,5367137


I do have to side with Von Braun in his theory that a space station would be the best approach to launch a moon mission.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The operative phrase being: "if necessary it can be converted into a terribly effective atomic bomb carrier." That is the sort of thing you were expected to say if you wanted the US to spend four billion dollars on a space station at the height of the Cold War. I'm not going to bother to defend von Braun further. His personality is irrelevant to the materiality of the moon landing.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.


They don't need to prove that they did. Why should they? They just did it. It's you that must somehow prove the contrary. How they did it has been documented in great detail. It involved a systematic series of experimental spaceflights that collected the necessary data to design, construct and fly the mission. Mercury to test basic engineering and medical principles. Unmanned probes to gather information on the cis-lunar and lunar environment. (Funny how the Surveyor spacecraft looks like the LM... could it have been as much about testing the basic engineering as gathering geological information? Hmmmm....) Gemini to develop in flight tracking and rendezvous capabilities, EV suit design, MU design, etc. Then, of course, a test run of the CSM on Apollo 7. a "proof-of-principle" flight on Apollo 8, testing the LM on Apollo 9, etc. Sounds almost methodical to me. It certainly blows your claim that Apollo didn't fit the "evolution" of the space program out of the water.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



You know what, why dont you tell us how the US managed to land men on the moon within 10 years? And how they proved they did it.


They don't need to prove that they did. Why should they? They just did it.


If it were the soviet who claimed to have gone to the moon in the 60s, you bet everyone would want them to prove it.
Just because the US claimed it, doesnt automatically mean they are telling the truth. The US was just corrupt as the USSR



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Would you agree that NASA has not fully proven without a doubt what the 'phenomenon' (their words) is? I mean this is what I mean about scientific curiosity, where is it? Did they do tests to dismiss all other possibilities?


NASA has provided a plausible, likely explanation for the phenomenon. What would you have them do next - offer all the implausible, unlikely explanations one could think of? Martian spotlights? Venusian brain rays? Or Reichian/Kirlian auras, as DeMeo proposes?

It's noteworthy that DeMeo's PhD is not in Biology or Physics, but in Geography. How does this make him any more competent than a serious lay researcher to propose his 'auras' as an explanation for the glow around the astronauts and equipment in these photos? More importantly, how does this make him more competent than credentialed experts in photographic analysis?

Even though you may not agree with NASA's explanation (which I'm sure is only because it comes from NASA), why wouldn't other qualified, interested parties have disputed it by now if it were lacking? Not every photo analyst either works for or is fearful of NASA, and it would be a great coup to find a meaningful, alternate explanation for these photos if one existed. So far, though, only some speculative kook operating outside his discipline has come to the conclusion you brought up in this thread.


Tell me Torch2k, if somebody told you the moon had a blue glow or haze around it, what would you say?


Three things, in this order:

1. Show me:

a. that it's an indisputable haze or glow;
b. that it occurs consistently given certain conditions; and,
c. that it fails to occur given certain other conditions.

2. Tell me:

a. why you believe it occurs; and,
b. why you believe this explanation is better than more prosaic explanations.

3. Prove to me:

a. that the phenomenon can be reproduced consistently in situations such as 1(b);
b. that the phenomenon does not occur in situations such as 1(c); and,
c. that thresholds can be established between these two states by varying conditions.

And if the exercise is meant to be scientific, it needs to be:

1. Predictive - given certain conditions, this effect will be evident;

2. Repeatable - one could recreate the effect at will; and,

3. Contestable - other causes for the effect could be proferred, but should not necessarily be preferred.

DeMeo fails to establish his case this rigorously: he doesn't expressly state the causes of the phenomenon; he fails to demonstrate that the phenomenon can be recreated by recreating certain conditions; he doesn't adequately address other explanations by determining their effect; and, he fails to explain why his explanation is better than others offered.

One important question still remains, though. DeMeo does state that these photos were taken on the moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Do you disagree with him on that? And if you don't, how does it affect the importance he ascribes to these photos?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I just found out from a reliable source, an ex-military friend of a friend's dad's cousin's attorney.

There is no moon. It's a hologram generated by a company called LunaTech International. It's a front for the CIA!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 



There is no moon. It's a hologram generated by a company called LunaTech International. It's a front for the CIA!


Ssssshhh! So long as these guys focus on the landing, they'll never notice the real conspiracy!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Concorde a natural developement?
First delta wing passenger jet
first faster than sound passenger jet
first thing with that ridiculous nose
And of course it went mach2 right away, not mach 0.9, mach 1.1, 1.3, no 2, right from the start.

So did we send probes to the moon in the 60ies?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Apollo 16 anomalies:

instant communication between the moon and earth:


06 00 54 12 CDR-EVA If Charlie goes down-Sun to take the picture, we're in trouble.
06 00 54 15 CC All right. We can see that.

06 00 54 17 CDR-EVA It ought to be in the pan
06 00 54 18 CC Right. We see it.


I know it was relatively fast, but this is like talking in person.
wasnt there supposed to be a two second delay?

Strange Disney-like text (and these were hardcore test pilots risking their lives on the moon?)



Roger. I'm just trying to figure out - Dadgummit!
Darn right.
Well, I'll be doggoned.
Yeah. Hey, let me take it easy now. I'm pooped.
Charlie, you really are. Boy, is this ever neat!

Okay, hmmmm
let's see; how do I do this? f/ll at 74, - Click - click - click - click. Okay,
Do you want me to change the mags on the - It' s about empty.

Ya-ho-ho-ho-ho. Look at this baby.
Oh, this machine is super.
That rake is sure a great way to get a lot of rocks - in a hurry.
This little bitty one is probably a primary,



rolls eyes... yep, Apollo TV for Kids.
Well this wasnt so Disney-like :



128:50:37 Young: I have the farts, again. I got them again, Charlie. I don't know what the hell gives them to me. Certainly not...I think it's acid stomach. I really do.
128:50:44 Duke: It probably is.

128:50:45 Young: (Laughing) I mean, I haven't eaten this much citrus fruit in 20 years! And I'll tell you one thing, in another 12 f***ing days, I ain't never eating any more. And if they offer to sup(plement) me potassium with my breakfast, I'm going to throw up! (Pause) I like an occasional orange. Really do. (Laughs) But I'll be durned if I'm going to be buried in oranges.

[Journal Contributor Doug Van Dorn offers the following in reference to John's comment about 'another 12 days'. "This is a typical, John Young minor mis-speak. Apollo 16 was scheduled for a duration of 12 days. Even though they were five days into the mission, and were looking at the likelihood of a somewhat shortened mission due to the CSM's MTVC problem (it ended up being a 10-day mission), in talking about when he'd be free to deep-six orange-flavored *anything* from his diet, John used the mission duration - 'another 12 days' - rather than 'when we get back'."]


Minor mis-peak... you mean they went off the script.


weight in 1/6th gravity:


05 04 08 39 LMP-EVA Okay; I've got it. That's 20 pounds of - that's 20 pounds of rock!


How could he tell? Did it feel like 20 pounds for him there? Or did he know the rock actually was 20 pounds?



Sound in a vacuum:


06 Oh 43 13 CDR-EVA Sure is comforting be able to hear those old wheels turning. You can hear them; they make a rumble.




NASA quickly responds:



06 04 43 20 CC We can't hear them, but we can imagine it's comforting.



Also:



25 April 1972 - EVA Apollo 16-5. Deep space retrieval of film cartridges from Service Module.




TransEarth EVA - On the way back from the moon, command module pilot Ken Mattingly conducted a deep space EVA to retrieve film from the SIM bay. The EVA was documented with a television broadcast and with the 16MM data acquisition camera.


See... they also called it *deep space*. But how deep was he? How far from Earth?
I cant seem to find the data. Anyway, moving on:




Mattingly (Duke - Stand up) - Transearth EVA 4
EVA 4 Start: April 25, 1972, 20:33:46 UTC
EVA 4 End: April 25, 21:57:28 UTC
Duration: 1 hour, 23 minutes, 42 seconds




218 49 46 Mattingly (EVA): Ooh! Charlie, you'll need the outer visor as soon as you get into the hatch

218 58 00 Mattingly (EVA): Boy, that old visor of yours - that outer visor on the glare shield really comes in handy. Okay

219 00 33 Mattingly (EVA): It is that, all right. I don't even see any stars.

219 02 10 Mattingly (EVA): There's no bubbles on the paint or anything like that. The area right under the quad - I'll have to raise my visor to see - Yeah, I got the inner one still down. I will. Yeah, you don't need to remind me of that one.

218 56 59 Mattingly (EVA): Oh, man. Man, the old Moon's out there. Okay, going after the Pan Camera. Okay, here comes the hard cover ... gone.

219 23 48 Mattingly (EVA): Hang on; I've got my scissors right here.


Ummm... Scissors?





219 31 19 Duke (onboard): That must be sublimating from somewhere.

219 31 21 Young (onboard): It's coming off - it's coming off the - conden - the condensation is coming off the glycol lines.

219 31 26 Duke (onboard): Oh.

219 31 28 Mattingly (EVA): Probably getting some off the bulkheads, too --

219 31 29 Young (onboard): Yeah, that's right ...

219 31 30 Mattingly (EVA): ...drying this place out.

219 31 32 Young (onboard): I mean to tell you, there's a lot of cotton-picking water in this machine. Didn't you notice all them bubbles leaving? That was all water.



this?







219 36 48 Mattingly (EVA): You get a good look at the Earth, Charlie?

219 36 49 Duke (onboard): Oh, yeah. And I spun around and looked at the Moon, too. The thing that impresses me, though, is how black it is, Ken. Yeah, is it black!

219 37 05 Mattingly (EVA): I'm really surprised I don't see any stars.

219 37 07 Young (onboard): Charlie's only said 25 times it's black out there.

219 37 11 Duke (onboard): What?

219 37 12 Young (onboard): You've only said that 25 times. (Laughter)

219 37 14 Duke (onboard): (Garble) see (garble) (laughter).

219 37 15 Young (onboard): It really must be black out there! (Laughter)

219 37 17 Duke (onboard): It's really black! (Laughter)

219 37 21 Mattingly (EVA): (Laughter) What time is it?



Yeah.... inside jokes are the






new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join