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: 135
377
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




What is diffusing solar radiation while being on the moon's surface?
You dont know?
Well I dont know either.


What? Seriously WHAT?

Then you say this?


So, being on the moon is no different than floating in space when it
comes to being hit directly by the sun.


Being hit directly by the sun? Are you talking about being exposed to solar radiation?


So if the sun is hitting the entire side of an astronaut, it is heating the entire surface of that area. And plenty of photos and videos show the astronauts being from tip to toe exposed to the sun.


Do you understand Thermal Dynamics at all? Do you understand the difference between: Conduction, Convection, Radiation?


The only factor the moon itself has is SECONDARY.


Again Foosm you have show your lack of understanding the Apollo Missions to the Moon.

Being on the Moon HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT!


In other words if the astronaut is walking on a sun heated surface, or picking up stones heated by the sun. And lets not forget ionizing radiation from the moon's surface.


AGAIN DO YOU UNDERSTAND THERMAL DYNAMICS AT ALL?

You need molecules to conduct heat, in a vacuum heat transfer is solely done by RADIATION. Therefore heating by contact on the lunar surface is negligible.


Ionizing radiation from the Moons surface?? Now you telling me the surface of the moon is radioactive??

:shk: The ignorance.

All this, your answer to my question to pk55 about how a low sun angle can produce higher temperature than a high sun angle.

Wow you obviously understand less than I thought.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by theability]




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I don't buy it.

the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.

Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.

EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.

It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by FoosM
 



EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing?



Why do you think that?

Do you also think the janitors at NASA knew or would have to have known?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.

Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.

EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.

It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.


I see this failed argument come up all the time.

Thousands of people would know if it was a hoax? Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium
I see this failed argument come up all the time.

...Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?


*You* just failed, only WORSE... If it's just the 'bolt tighteners' and the like, then it is in fact HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS. That figure can be verifed at innumerable sources:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.atpe.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...
..and many others...

But if we restrict it to those who *would* spot a hoax, ie the supervisors and coordinators, the designers, the overseers, the managers, the astronauts, even the geologists who examined the returned moon samples, the crews on the carriers, ad infinitum - in other words, people who could EASILY spot any hint of a hoax, it's still MANY, MANY THOUSANDS. And that doesn't count the uncountable - *other* astrophysicists, scientists and engineers that were simply watching at the time, and since, who have access to an absolute wealth of information and documentation. There is NOT ONE notable, credible scientist or engineer who promotes the hoax - just web pretenders and idiot cab-drivers like Sibrel, or people who lie about their qualifications/involvement like Kaysing, or delusional dullards whose only skill is the ability to use presets in a video editing program, and steal other people's faulty ideas. Hi, Jarrah.

So, for someone who doesn't do math, has only ever tightened bolts, has never worked in or near the upper echelons of science or engineering and doesn't understand the finer points of either... then maybe you might think that way.


This thread is a 'testament' to those folk - people without a clue about basic logic, let alone space sciences, general science, engineering, photography, and the myriad of other disciplines involved in such a huge project. The Interweb gives them a voice. Hurrah.

If you AREN'T one of those, turbonium, can I ask where is your input to the actual scientific discussions in this thread?

What is your 'favorite' issue? Walk the walk.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
By the way, turbonium, can you tell us how you have changed your goalposts? Back in 2005, on this forum, you posted this:


Just a damn picture of the buggy or buggy tracks or lem base will do. Is that really so much to ask for? Why wouldn't NASA do it for PR purposes alone


You made that comment AFTER showing that you didn't understand optics, and being asked what proof you wanted.

Let's be very specific - you asked to see some images from NASA showing buggy tracks, LM base... There's a link below with LOTS of such images from NASA's LRO showing buggy tracks, LM base... I've picked the link below because not only does it show a good sampling of those images, it also has some REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND text that fills in the big gaps in your knowledge of telescopes and optics. Stuff like this:

Satellite photos of Earth are taken from about 280 miles up. The moon is 238,857 miles away. If you zoom in (+), cars are visible but fuzzy. Remember, that's from 280 miles away! Satellite photographs are taken by satellites, small spacecraft in close orbit around a moon or planet. We had to put a satellite in orbit around the moon to get satellite-quality photos there!...
At the distance of the moon, the Hubble can't see anything smaller than 60 meters wide. The lunar module's landing gear is 9 meters across...

Enjoy:
www.squidoo.com...

What would be good enough proof now? They have to take you up there personally?


(Fixed broken link)

[edit on 11-7-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM
Its quite simple really.


I'm not really interested in this debate as much any more but I'd rather not have someone have to dig through FoosM's posts to try and read 'how it was possible' - FoosM you forget this thread is heading towards 150 pages long.

I'll try to be as objective as possible.

FoosM believes that the moon was surveyed around 1967 to get the correct dimensions. He then believes that a film crew run by director Stanley Kubrick created a fake moon landing using a combination of built objects and front screen projection. The astronauts were then made mobile using a collection of techniques such as wire work and possibly slow motion.

FoosM and supporters believe this would have been easy to conceal and the astronauts were not taking the mission seriously when communicating on the moon about it.

Others believe too many people would need to be involved. That certain key post technologies weren't available. That front screen projection has several severe draw backs preventing it from being used without being detected.

FoosM also believes that the 'black' back ground would make the wires etc easier to conceal using film painting techniques.

I'll state, however that I don't think FoosM has any form of qualification in the VFX or film industry and isn't really qualified to make these statements. I only say this since I'm mostly cataloging FoosM's beliefs and without some kind of balancing statement they might look convincing at least by themselves. There are technical issues I don't have time to go into regarding front screen projection and other proposed techniques.


"I'll try to be as objective as possible. "

Having a hard time eh?




Originally posted by FoosM
The other issue:
Distraction. People were worried about Vietnam, Civil Rights, they were recovering from assassinated leaders, there was the red scare. You think the
average man was keeping up with details coming out of NASA?
No.

As for intelligence agencies... name the ones you think were on any level decent enough to infiltrate the US? Which foreign spy agency outed project MOL? Or Keyhole? Or any of the other DoD secret space missions?

The Soviets? The Soviets lied about their missions too, and the US knew it
And who in the west would believe the USSR anyway if they called fake?
People forget that information on the US side was and is controlled. And dont tell me its not.


On a side note ... People didn't have time to follow the moon landing?! This was before the internet and it was one of the biggest events of the time?! I know you tend to cover all possibilities FoosM (or hit from all angles as you put it) but please this point is really leaning towards wasting people's time to refute. The red scare etc ... didn't incapacitate the collective populations of all the countries receiving information about the moon landing.



Did I say they didnt have time? I said they weren't concerned with keeping up the details. Do you even comprehend what my point was?



I'll also point out that even to a lay person like me - the 60s weren't exactly a golden age of national security by any stretch. The fact that you know the names of certain projects that allegedly existed would kind of go against your own examples.



These programs didnt allegedly exist. They did exist! Yes MOL was announced publicly, but the public didnt really know what MOL would entail. This is the hide in plain sight tactic.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
"I'll try to be as objective as possible. "

Having a hard time eh?


I believe I have been much politer in this conversation than yourself and dragnet have been to me. Please point out anywhere in my summary where I misrepresented you; if I have, correct it for the readers. Any opinion I added I very politely added a disclaimer. If you are a VFX, film, television, or video worker I will apologize.

Taking a jag at me won't make your points any clearer.


Did I say they didnt have time? I said they weren't concerned with keeping up the details. Do you even comprehend what my point was?


Time/brain power/concern/whatever word ... There were persons back then that followed every aspect of the landing religiously. To think there wasn't is just ... odd.

I honestly think you could have worked out what I was saying here for yourself, but you chose to make it appear more awkward than it was.

Please at least try to understand people before berating people's comprehension, and if you think someone didn't understand you then restate your point as best you can. I have done it many times in this debate.



These programs didnt allegedly exist. They did exist! Yes MOL was announced publicly, but the public didnt really know what MOL would entail. This is the hide in plain sight tactic.


They may have existed. I don't know huge amounts about them. What does it have to do with anything? Other people have made far more articulate points regarding this subject, so you should address them instead of myself for this one.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium

Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.

Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.

EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.

It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.


I see this failed argument come up all the time.

Thousands of people would know if it was a hoax? Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?


People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of


compartmentalization... the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.

The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information[1] to prevent disclosure of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the opposition.


They also fail to admit to the fact that most people will not stick their necks out if they are witness to a crime, especially one being committed by the government. I mean, where would you go?

Even when it comes to direct crimes. How many women dont speak up when they get sexually harassed at work, or have been victims of date rape? How many business owners go to the police when a gang or mob extorts money from them? Simple fact is, most people dont want to attract attention to themselves, they understand that the truth doesn't guarantee you justice.

Perfect example is Bill Kaysing. He is a witness, claims to know information, and look how he has been treated since he came out.

"We Never Went to the Moon" was self-published in 1974.
I say 1974, two years after the last mission. Someone who worked
for Rocketdyne, where Saturn V rocket engines were built, seven years that didnt believe, like the USSR, the US couldn't pull it off before 1970.

Here your whistleblower. Maybe if the general public demanded answers more people would be willing to come out that were directly involved in the scam.

The US couldnt even pull off
The Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL)

the USSR did:
Three Almaz stations were launched: Salyut 2, Salyut 3 and Salyut 5 in response to MOL.

The US had a shuttle,
The USSR had a shuttle.

So I dont get how the USSR/Russia couldnt respond with a manned mission to the moon by 2010.




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by turbonium

Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.

Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.

EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.

It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.


I see this failed argument come up all the time.

Thousands of people would know if it was a hoax? Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?


People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of


compartmentalization... the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.

The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information[1] to prevent disclosure of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the opposition.


They also fail to admit to the fact that most people will not stick their necks out if they are witness to a crime, especially one being committed by the government. I mean, where would you go?

Even when it comes to direct crimes. How many women dont speak up when they get sexually harassed at work, or have been victims of date rape? How many business owners go to the police when a gang or mob extorts money from them? Simple fact is, most people dont want to attract attention to themselves, they understand that the truth doesn't guarantee you justice.

Perfect example is Bill Kaysing. He is a witness, claims to know information, and look how he has been treated since he came out.

"We Never Went to the Moon" was self-published in 1974.
I say 1974, two years after the last mission. Someone who worked
for Rocketdyne, where Saturn V rocket engines were built, seven years that didnt believe, like the USSR, the US couldn't pull it off before 1970.

Here your whistleblower. Maybe if the general public demanded answers more people would be willing to come out that were directly involved in the scam.

The US couldnt even pull off
The Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL)

the USSR did:
Three Almaz stations were launched: Salyut 2, Salyut 3 and Salyut 5 in response to MOL.

The US had a shuttle,
The USSR had a shuttle.

So I dont get how the USSR/Russia couldnt respond with a manned mission to the moon by 2010.



You sound like a broken record. Compartmentalization? Okay, rather than point out how impossible it would be to do that, let's have you explain why Kaysing would be a reliable witness given your assumption. Please provide biographical details from anyone but Kaysing that support his being a whistle blower.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium
 


So the moon landing is the only time, possibly in the history of man, definitely in the history of the modern world, that not one single person: Involved in the operation, opposed to the operation, researching the operation, didn't leak a single thing. It was 100% perfect. KGB saw no fault in it, muck-raking journalists got no inside sources, nobody got a change of heart, nobody tried to score political points by talking about it, no senator even was suspicious enough to dig around - Nothing, nada, zilch. It was so compartmentalized that there was never once a single leak of information reliably on this falsification, so much so you guys have to rely on blurry pictures and bad physics. This all happened, and for some reason, nothing else is as compartmentalized in government ever again?

Who really has the flawed argument there? I'll give you a hint, it's not me.


[edit on 7-11-2010 by WolfofWar]


jra

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of

"compartmentalization..."


And you clearly have no idea how impossible it would be to work on a project as big as Apollo was with it all compartmentalized. First there's the fact that it was an open and public program. How do you hide what the people are building and working on, when the whole project is public knowledge? My head wants to explode at that bizarre sense of logic.

The three stages of the Saturn V were built by three different companies (Boeing, North American, and Douglas). With the amount of communication and coordination needed between all these companies working together along with NASA, it would be quite a task all by itself. How would you compartmentalize something like that?

I've never seen any evidence of NASA ever operating in that manner, or any Aerospace company for that matter. It would be absurd to try and build something like that. If you're going to make a claim like that, then show me some evidence of compartmentalization.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by turbonium
 


So the moon landing is the only time, possibly in the history of man, definitely in the history of the modern world, that not one single person: Involved in the operation, opposed to the operation, researching the operation, didn't leak a single thing. It was 100% perfect. KGB saw no fault in it, muck-raking journalists got no inside sources, nobody got a change of heart, nobody tried to score political points by talking about it, no senator even was suspicious enough to dig around - Nothing, nada, zilch. It was so compartmentalized that there was never once a single leak of information reliably on this falsification, so much so you guys have to rely on blurry pictures and bad physics. This all happened, and for some reason, nothing else is as compartmentalized in government ever again?

Who really has the flawed argument there? I'll give you a hint, it's not me.

[edit on 7-11-2010 by WolfofWar]


Your summation of the situation is flawed on many levels.
The fact that you can make such statements shows me that you have not read through this thread, or choose to read this thread with biased glasses.

The mere fact that so many see through the sham is evidence enough it hasnt worked.

You dont believe because you choose not to believe. Fine, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a hoax. This is how have defenders of 911 cant see its an inside job, though its clear building 7 is the key to the conspiracy. Or the JFK assassination was done by a lone gunman, even though the magic bullet was the key to the conspiracy. Clear clues for the average person. For others, they choose to rationalize it away.

When it comes to Apollo, there are only so many things you can rationalize away until they begin to conflict with each other. And this thread is revealed an enormous amount of contradictions. Practically every aspect of Apollo is in question.

If it really happened, we would have enough evidence by now to prove it.
This would include return missions and other countries going to the moon.

or even as another poster asked:


Let me ask you this. If NASA can send not one but two rovers in 6 to 7 months to Mars (54 million miles from Earth), why can’t NASA send at least one rover in 3 days to our moon (430,000 miles from Earth). We don’t need to rely on NASA’s stupid orbiter’s definitive proofs images, which is totally laughable. Once the rover lands on the moon’s surface, we can get highest resolution images up and close too. Come on, smart people. Answer me. Why is NASA avoiding this option? Remember, they are spending our money in billions of dollar to accomplish their lies.



So sorry, your post offers not one iota of proof the missions occurred the way NASA claims.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm not the one that needs to provide proof. A lot of people believe in things that are fallacious. People want to believe life is more complex. My argument is not flawed, my argument is that you do not live in reality. The hoax is impossible simply based on logistics. There has been no credible witnesses, there has been no credible journalists breaking stories, there has been no credible whistle-blowers, there has been no credible accusations by "enemy" countries whose intelligence agencies wanted nothing more than to make the US out to be fools and make them fail. The mechanizations and innumerable complexities required to pull this off requires everything to be beyond human error.

It does not work. You have created a new religion, like most conspiracies. You require in life for things to be insanely more complex and controlled then the chaos and insanity that is our existence. This is a psychological issue most CTers seem to be suffering from.

My position is not flawed, my position is one grounded in reality. Your position requires laws beyond that of our dimension, yours requires innumerable times of suspension of disbelief and a disobedience to occams razor. You bare the burden of proof, but it need not even get that far. There has been no whistleblowers, no journalist stories to blow the lid, no intelligence agencies to prove the greatest hoax of the century. The conspiracy doesn't even have the wings large enough to break away from this logistical issue. It only survives in those so desperate for a more complex and controlled world that they need to make stuff like this up.




[edit on 7-11-2010 by WolfofWar]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I tell YOU why they dont want to spend the MONEY on showing IDIOTS like you whats there, when we already have evidence, its that simple.
You mention the Russians what about China if that was faked in any way they would have used it against the USA if only to help increase their grip on the people by showing the western world as liars!
Also think about the simple fact if they faked it at some point in the future they would be proved wrong and it doesn't matter how far!
It happened except it the LRO pictures SHOW the objects and tracks as documeted in the EXACT positions grow yourself a set of nads and except your wrong.
Showed this before and I will show you again(first shown by jra on here)
Everybody can press ctrl and + at the same time to zoom in on the image!

files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half of image taken as Apollo 17 left the MOON you can see the tracks of the Astronauts movements.

The other half the LRO image of that area it shows the tracks are 100% INDENTICAL .

You are the kind of person that even if they took you to the Moon you would say they faked that as well!



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



When it comes to Apollo, there are only so many things you can rationalize away until they begin to conflict with each other. And this thread is revealed an enormous amount of contradictions. Practically every aspect of Apollo is in question.


Name one. This thread has been going on for about 150 pages and you have yet to point out a single contradiction that was not shown to be a result of your own misunderstanding. You have "de-bunked" photographs by drawing lines that show that an astronaut's shadow should be cast at right angles to the light source. You have made assertions about radioactivity without understanding the nature of the phenomenon and most recently you veered away from a discussion about the PLSS because you weren't able to understand the difference between radiative, conducted and convectional heating. The list goes on. Just one contradiction is all you need to make an extremely watered down version of your statement.


If it really happened, we would have enough evidence by now to prove it.


So physical evidence (rocks, spacecraft), documentation (photographs, memos, accounting records, etc) and eyewitness testimony don't count as evidence? What does, in your book?


This would include return missions and other countries going to the moon.


Why is this a logical necessity? When the Chinese land there in five or ten years, you will only argue that their mission was "faked."



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Well can we finally put to rest the people who have ignorantly claimed that Apollo was a hoax:

Jarrah White

Ralph Rene

Bill Kaysing

And most of all, one who has wasted 2395 replies and 135 pages of ATS space:

Foosm!!!

:shk:

Well can we????



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of

"compartmentalization..."

many
And you clearly have no idea how impossible it would be to work on a project as big as Apollo was with it all compartmentalized. First there's the fact that it was an open and public program. How do you hide what the people are building and working on, when the whole project is public knowledge? My head wants to explode at that bizarre sense of logic.


what you are saying is bizarre when in fact NASA/Apollo documents where classified. Many have been recently released to the public. Second of all, private companies were contracted to work with NASA. You think the public has access to the goings on in PRIVATE companies?




The three stages of the Saturn V were built by three different companies (Boeing, North American, and Douglas). With the amount of communication and coordination needed between all these companies working together along with NASA, it would be quite a task all by itself. How would you compartmentalize something like that?



Thank you, you just admitted Apollo was compartmentalized.







I've never seen any evidence of NASA ever operating in that manner, or any Aerospace company for that matter.


What you have seen?
I dont know who you are or why your experience is of any importance in
proving Apollo real or fake or validating any information I present.




It would be absurd to try and build something like that. If you're going to make a claim like that, then show me some evidence of compartmentalization.


Only some?


(5) The Contractor shall provide NASA, including the NASA Office of Inspector General, access to the Contractor’s and subcontractors’ facilities, installations, operations, documentation, databases, and personnel used in performance of the contract. Access shall be provided to the extent required to carry out IT security inspection, investigation, and/or audits to safeguard against threats and hazards to the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of NASA information or to the function of computer systems operated on behalf of NASA, and to preserve evidence of computer crime. To facilitate mandatory reviews, the Contractor shall ensure appropriate compartmentalization of NASA information, stored and/or processed, either by information systems in direct support of the contract or that are incidental to the contract.


Satisfied?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Well can we finally put to rest the people who have ignorantly claimed that Apollo was a hoax:

Jarrah White

Ralph Rene

Bill Kaysing

And most of all, one who has wasted 2395 replies and 135 pages of ATS space:

Foosm!!!

:shk:

Well can we????



You dont have to waste your time here defending Apollo if you know deep in your gut it happened. Spend your time with more important matters. But I doubt you do believe it yourself, and you want to silence those that are seeking the truth because the truth is painful. You dont want your worldview disrupted. So stop pretending like you won some argument or debate. You haven't. More information is coming.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

files.abovetopsecret.com...

One half of image taken as Apollo 17 left the MOON you can see the tracks of the Astronauts movements.

The other half the LRO image of that area it shows the tracks are 100% INDENTICAL .

You are the kind of person that even if they took you to the Moon you would say they faked that as well!



Wow, so impressive. You explain to me how this was impossible to fake and then we can talk.

And if anybody 'took me to the moon' I wouldn't believe it because I should be dead before reaching there. But put your money with your mouth is and support JW:



new topics




 
377
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join