It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 157
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by dragnet53

The only points anywhere I'm interested in are the ones for my degree, I'm not interested in ATS 'stars'. But really, is that the best response you could come up with to my post replying to yours? Lost for words are we? Sometimes it's better to say nothing, rather than drag the bottom of the slurry pit for something to say... Is that where you get your name from Dragnet?
I'll give you another chance at an intellectual response this time, I won't hold my breath though.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:44 AM
Since this thread OP went directly to "Arguement By YouTube" in its presentation of the numbskull views of the bloke form Down Under, here is a compilation --- also from YouTube.

A four-part series that do a damn fine job on that Young Aussie "genius" (
) ---- presented for your viewing and listening pleasure, and hopefully for SOME people's edification:

[color=gold]Part 1 --

[color=gold]Part 2 --

[color=gold]Part 3 --

[color=gold]Part 4 --


Oops, tags....

...and....listen carefully for the complaints about the "Proppaganniss" (sic)!

[edit on 4 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:27 PM
If I could get one message to you it would be this: the future of this country and the welfare of the free world depends upon our success in space. There is no room in this country for any but a fully cooperative, urgently motivated all-out effort toward space leadership. No one person, no one company, no one government agency, has a monopoly on the competence, the missions, or the requirements for the space program.

— President Lyndon B.

If somebody would ask me today what the purpose of Apollo was, I would say to make the US appear as THE dominant force in Space, particularly towards the USSR and to use it as a cover for their Spy satellite program.

The first point, is self-evident.
We all know about the Sputnik scare (catalyst) that began the space race (the story or challenge) which led to the prize (manned lunar landing) and rewards (positive public & world perception, political power, scientific power, international contracts, tax funding, job creation, etc)
And we know that the only way to appear to be dominant in a venture is to
1. Conduct a feat beyond your closest rival.
2. The ability to repeat that feat successfully.

No other nation has claimed to land a man on the moon 40 years after the US has. Which makes Apollo a feat beyond their closest rivals. And to do it repeatedly, sealed their perceived dominance in space.

Whether or not you believe in Apollo the facts of the results speak for themselves.

Now lets get to the second point which is theoretical and is dependent on whether or not you believe the public mission of Apollo as real. That Apollo was used as cover for a spy program and/or was the spy program. Either way, its true mission was not to fly to the moon, but spy on the USSR and other enemies.

Washington D.C., July 13, 2007 - Throughout the 1960s and most of the 1970s, while the U.S. government conducted its space reconnaissance program under a veil of absolute secrecy,

This is the first clue.
The time-line.
The 1960's and 1970's.

Lets look what the US space program was all about since its inception:

In its May 2, 1946 report, "Preliminary Design for an Experimental World Circling Spaceship," the Douglas Aircraft Corporation examined the potential value of satellites for scientific and military purposes. Possible military uses included missile guidance, weapons delivery, weather reconnaissance, communications, attack assessment, and "observation." A little less than nine years later, on March 15, 1955, the United States Air Force issued General Operational Requirement No. 80, which established a high-priority requirement for an advanced reconnaissance satellite.

It was military oriented.

During its first year in office, the Kennedy administration approved the creation of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Reconnaissance Program (NRP), entities whose existence was classified Secret and Top Secret, respectively. The NRP comprised the satellite reconnaissance and aerial overflight programs conducted by the CIA, Air Force, and Navy. For its part, the NRO served as the institutional home for those programs, reviewed proposals for new systems, set common security standards, arranged for launches, and provided other services and forms of oversight.

Established in 1960, the existence of the NRO was not declassified until 1992.

During the Cold War, the NRO's primary concern was tracking the troop, plane, and missile deployments of the Soviet Union and its satellite states. After its formation, the NRO took over administration of CORONA, the world's first photoreconnaissance satellite. The CORONA program, declassified in 1995, operated from August, 1960 until May 1972. During its twelve years, CORONA took over 800,000 images.

Apollo began in earnest after President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 special address to a joint session of Congress declaring a national goal of "landing a man on the Moon" by the end of the decade.[1][2]
This goal was accomplished with the Apollo 11 mission on July 20, 1969 when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon, while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972.

So we have
NRO established in 1960 (in secret)
Corona operated from 1960 to 1972 (in secret)
Apollo (public) established in 1961 ended in 1972

Then we have
MOL operated from 1963 in secret to 1965 semi-publically announced, cancelled officially 1969, would have ended in 1975
Skylab 1973 & 1974 (manned) till 1979 unmanned.

Question, was Gemini, Apollo and Sklylab cover for MOL and possibly other spy programs?

I think so. The time-lines are simply too close to be coincidental.
Now many of you might say MOL didnt take off, but Im suggesting Apollo and SkyLab were MOL, or ended being a version of MOL, when it was determined that a moon program could not work.

Lets take a look at spacecraft that we know about:

The NRO spacecraft include:

Keyhole series — photo imaging:
KH-1, KH-2, KH-3, KH-4, KH-4A, KH-4B Corona (1959–1972)
KH-5 — Argon (1961–1962)
KH-6— Lanyard (1963)
KH-7 — Gambit (1963–1967)[24]
KH-8 — Gambit (1966–1984)
KH-9 — Hexagon and Big Bird (1971–1986)
KH-10 — Dorian (cancelled)
KH-11 — Crystal and Kennan (1976–1988)
KH-12 — Ikon and Improved Crystal (1990?–)
KH-13 — (1999?)
Samos — photo imaging (1960–1962)
Poppy – ELINT program (1962–1971) continuing Naval Research Laboratory's GRAB (1960–1961)
Jumpseat (1971–1983) and Trumpet (1994–1997) SIGINT
Lacrosse/Onyx — radar imaging (1988–)
Canyon (1968–1977), Vortex/Chalet (1978–1989) and Mercury (1994–1998)—SIGINT including COMINT
Rhyolite/Aquacade (1970–1978), Magnum/Orion (1985–1990), and Mentor (1995–2003)—SIGINT
Quasar, communications relay
Misty/Zirconic – stealth IMINT
NROL-1 through NROL-26 – various secret satellites.

NROL stands for National Reconnaissance Office Launch.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:38 PM
To continue from

Lets take a deeper look at the timeline and how Apollo and MOL merged

1963 September 12 - Gemini, Apollo, and X-20 studied for military space missions. -
The President's Scientific Advisory Committee requested a briefing from the Air Force on possible military space missions, biomedical experiments to be performed in space, and the capability of Gemini, Apollo, and the X-20 vehicles to execute these requirements.

1963 December 10 - Cancellation of the X-20 DynaSoar project and start of the MOL project -
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara announced cancellation of the X-20 Dyna Soar project at a news briefing at the Pentagon. McNamara stated that fiscal resources thereby saved would be channeled into broader research on the problems and potential value of manned military operations in space, chiefly the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) project. These decisions on the X-20 and MOL had been discussed and coordinated with NASA, and, although the Air Force received responsibility for the MOL project, NASA would continue to provide technical support. By the end of 1963 $410 million had been spent on Dynasoar, with another $373 million needed through the first flight. It was decided to complete re-entry testing of the Asset subscale unmanned vehicle, at a cost of $ 41 million.

1964 January 10 - Manned Orbiting Laboratory "an ominous harbinger...". -
James J. Haggerty, Jr., Space Editor for the Army-Navy-Air Force Journal and Register, called the assignment of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory to the Department of Defense 'an ominous harbinger of a reversal in trend, an indication that the military services may play a more prominent role in future space exploration at NASA's expense.... Whether you label it development platform, satellite platform, satellite or laboratory, it is clearly intended as a beginning for space station technology. It is also clearly the intent of this administration that, at least in the initial stages, space station development shall be under military rather than civil cognizance....'

1964 December 7 - Recommendation that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged. -
In a letter to President Lyndon B. Johnson, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, Chairman of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, recommended that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged. Senator Anderson argued that a jointly operated national space station program would most effectively use the nation's available resources. He claimed that $1 billion could be saved during the next five years if the MOL were canceled and those funds applied to NASA's Apollo-based space station program. Additional Details: Recommendation that the Air Force's MOL and NASA's Apollo X programs be merged..

1965 - five Gemini missions

1965 December 29 - NASA support to the Air Force on the MOL summarized. -
In the initial activity report outlining MSC's support to the Air Force on the MOL, Gemini Program Manager Charles W. Mathews summarized activity to date. He cited receipt on 20 November 1965 of authority to transfer surplus Gemini equipment to the MOL project. Since that time, he said, MSC had delivered to the Air Force several boilerplate test vehicles and a variety of support and handling equipment. MOL program officials and astronauts had also visited Houston for technical discussions and briefings.

1966 - five Gemini missions

1967 March 1 - NASA / USAF MOL Collaboration -
NASA agrees to fly four Deparment of Defense experiments planned for MOL on Apollo Applications mission instead (later Skylab). These included an inflatable airlock experiment. NASA also provided the Gemini 6 capsule to the Air Force for MOL crew training.

1967 November 9, Apollo 4 Launches (unmanned)
1968 January 22, Apollo 5 Launches (unmanned)

1968 March 1 - MOL qualification test underway. -
The MOL mockup was completed, static structural test of flight representative assemblies was underway, and major equipment was in qualification test.

1968 April 4 Apollo 6 Launches (unmanned)

1968 October 22 1Apollo 7 Launches
1968 December 21 Apollo 8 Launches
1969 March 3 - Apollo 9 Launches
1969 May 18 - Apollo 10 Launches

1969 June 10 - The DOD announced cancellation of its MOL Program.-
The program was initiated in 1965 to advance the development of both manned and unmanned defense-oriented space equipment and to ascertain the full extent of man's utility in space for defense purposes. Following MOL termination, NASA requested that the MOL food and diet contract with Whirlpool Corporation and the space suit development contract with Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corporation, be transferred to NASA.

1969 July 20 - Apollo 11 Launches

1969 August 4 - Seven astronauts from the defunct MOL project transferred to NASA -
Acting on an offer made by the Defense Department to assign a number of astronauts from the defunct MOL project to NASA, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller chose seven astronauts to augment MSC's flight crews. They were Karol J. Bobko, Charles G. Fullerton, Henry W. Hartsfield, and Donald H. Peterson (USAF); Richard H. Truly and Robert L. Crippin (USN); and Robert F. Overmyer (USMC). The decision to utilize these individuals, Mueller stated, derived from their extensive training and experience on the MOL project and the important national aspect of future manned space flight programs.

One of the sticking points I have had in Apollo as a hoax was whether or not Apollo was always a cover for US spy programs, or became a cover for spy programs? Now that I have learned Kennedy was behind NRO and NPO, Im leaning towards always.
Because the one issue I had with Kennedy was, how could he declare a moon landing when at the time such a feat was impossible and if anything, decades away?

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:46 PM
The second clue, using cover names for programs

It would not be until 1960 that U.S. efforts to exploit space for intelligence purposes began to yield positive results. In June of that year, a Naval Research Laboratory-designed payload, designated Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB), was orbited with a secret mission - to intercept the emanations of Soviet radar systems. In August 1960, the first successful CORONA mission, lasting one day and conducted under cover of an alleged scientific satellite program designated DISCOVERER, yielded more imagery of the Soviet Union than was produced in all four years of U-2 missions. The same year, President Eisenhower also approved a program to develop a high-resolution satellite to complement the CORONA satellites, which covered wide swaths of territory but with insufficient resolution to allow imagery interpreters to extract as much intelligence about facilities and weapons as they needed. This program would be designated GAMBIT.

These activities were conducted in as much secrecy as was feasible, particularly after the inauguration of John F. Kennedy. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were influenced by the May 1960 shoot-down of the U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers - an event which resulted in the termination of U-2 missions over Soviet territory. There was concern that any acknowledgment of U.S. capabilities would serve as a catalyst to the Soviet leadership to go beyond their protests at assumed U.S. space espionage and take more effective political and military measures to interfere with the Americanspy satellites. Thus, each use of the GRAB satellite to intercept Soviet radar signals had to be personally approved by President Eisenhower, just as he had to approve U-2 missions that crossed over Soviet territory.

So we can see that secrecy was very important. What is very difficult, when it comes to launching spy satellites, is that people can see the launches, in other words keeping it secret. A technique used in espionage is hiding things in plain sight.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:55 PM
Continuation of

Lets take a look at an example:

Hiding OXCART in Plain Sight

The A-12’s unique design and characteristics became the foundation for three other versions of supersonic aircraft that Lockheed built for CIA and the Air Force: the YF-12A, the M-21, and the SR-71.

While the A-12 was being tested and refined, US officials mulled over two major issues concerning it. The first was whether to publicly disclose the OXCART program. The Department of Defense had grown concerned that it could not overtly explain all the money the Air Force was spending on its versions of the A-12. At the same time, some CIA and Pentagon officials recognized that crashes or sightings of test flights could compromise the project.

Soon after the first flights in April 1962, CIA and the Air Force changed the program’s cover story from involving an interceptor aircraft to a multipurpose satellite launch system

In late 1962 and early 1963 the Department of Defense considered surfacing the YF-12A to provide a cover, reasoning that divulging the existence of a purely tactical aircraft would not reveal any clandestine collection capabilities. Voiced principally by CIA officials and James Killian and Edwin Land of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), the contrary argument—disclosing any version of the A-12 would compromise its design innovations, enable the Soviets to develop countermeasures, and destroy its value for reconnaissance—prevailed for the time being. The surfacing issue lingered, however, because OXCART technology would be useful for the Air Force’s supersonic B-70 bomber then under development, and for the proposed commercial supersonic transport that Congress was thinking about subsidizing. President Kennedy told CIA and the Pentagon to develop a plan for surfacing the OXCART program but to wait further instructions before proceeding.

By early 1964 the argument for disclosure had become persuasive. More A-12s were arriving at the test site and making more flights. The aircraft’s existence probably would be revealed eventually under circumstances the US government could not control, such as a training accident or equipment malfunction, or through a news leak. Commercial airline crews had sighted the A-12 in flight, and the editor of Aviation Week indicated that he knew about highly secret activities at the Skunk Works and would not let another publication scoop him. A key factor was that the Soviets’ TALL KING radar would be able to identify and track the A-12 despite its small, nonpersistent radar return. Finally, the White House’s reluctance to resume flights over Soviet territory would soon force a change in the A-12’s mission. Instead of flying over denied areas to collect strategic intelligence, it would most likely be used as a quick-reaction surveillance platform in fast-moving conflicts—a tactical function the Air Force should carry out, not CIA

On 29 February 1964, the National Security Council decided to surface OXCART. Later that day, the White House announced the successful development of an advanced experimental aircraft, the A‑11, which has been tested in sustained flight at more than 2,000 miles per hour and at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet.

For security reasons, the Air Force’s YF-12A interceptor was surfaced, not the A-12, and it was referred to as the A-11, at Kelly Johnson’s suggestion. None of the aircraft were already at Edwards, so two had to be rushed from the test site to support the cover story. Johnson recalled that “the aircraft were so hot that when they were moved into the new hanger the fire extinguishing nozzles came on and gave us a free wash job."[4] Testing of the A-12s continued at the secret facility; CIA’s involvement in the project remained classified, although it was widely assumed.

Surfacing the “A-11” unexpectedly embroiled program managers and technicians in a debate over using an OXCART aircraft to publicly set a world speed record. The presidential announcement stated that “[t]he world record for aircraft speed, currently held by the Soviets [1,665 mph], has been repeatedly broken in secrecy by the…A-11. The President has instructed the Department of Defense to demonstrate this capability with the procedure which, according to international rules, will permit the result of the test to be entered as a new world record.” CIA leaders strongly opposed using any of the A-12s to attempt this aeronautical feat. Of the four aircraft usedin test flights, only Article 121 had reached the cited speed. Using itin the record trials would set back the testing schedule, jeopardize the aircraft, and undermine the security of the program because the differences between the CIA and Air Force versions would be noticed, and the record would have to be set under the auspices of an uncleared international aviation organization

Here you can see the result of the announcement in TIME magazine:

To silence any further doubt about the A-11's role, the Air Force gave out a brief performance profile of the A11 as interceptor: the two-man (pilot and fire-control officer) plane, for example, can fly from Minneapolis to the northern tip of Hudson's Bay in an hour, and still have enough fuel to return to base. On target, the A11 is all killer, can make a second pass at an enemy bomber in one-fourth the time needed by a more maneuverable but slower F-106. Plans are now to use the plane for an assault on the Russian-held world speed record (1,665.89 m.p.h.), and the big black bird has already been redesignated the YF-12A (Y for prototype, F for fighter), which means it may soon go into production as a tactical U.S. Air Force fighter.

Which is why I think the Shuttle program was the ultimate dual use program. They could make the Shuttle public in the name of science while conducting secret missions for the military.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:01 PM
To continue:

early in the design phase of what eventually became the Space Shuttle, there were plans for the U.S. military to purchase some of the vehicles for its own purposes (mainly the servicing and crewing of proposed 'surveillance space stations'). The design requirements that thus emerged (in particular, the need for a longer-range glide capability, enabling the shuttle to land at specific U.S. Air Force bases), affected the eventual design of the vehicle, increasing its complexity. However, none of these 'Blue Shuttles' were ever built, and the U.S. military turned to increasingly sophisticated unmanned satellites as a more viable alternative.

Regular space shuttles have on occasion carried out missions for the military. It is noteworthy that NASA and the DoD agreed on delivering Discovery to Vandenberg AFB, first in May 1985 and then in September of that year. Discovery would have been dedicated for military and civilian flights from Vandenberg's SLC-6 launch complex. The schedule slipped until the Challenger Disaster in January 1986. In the wake of Challenger, on December 26, 1989 the Space Shuttle Program at Vandenberg was terminated by the USAF.[1] Military Shuttle flights were conducted from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the last dedicated mission being STS-53 in late 1992, deploying a military SDS B-3 communication satellite. Some military payloads have been flown on regular civilian Shuttle missions afterwards.[2]

Considering the capabilities of current space travel of the Soviets, US, China, Europe, etc. It seems pretty clear that the US did not send men to the moon, what they were doing was learning how to survive in LEO while spying on the USSR.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by FoosM


(Note the date....)

So...this is "news" to you? (Or, to the source you plagiarized from...come on, admit it...the "writing style"?? Surely bears no resemblence to your earlier posts. OR, is there more than one individual at work here, using this ATS screen name??

Either way, it's obvious.


The PBS link may not work for everyone, I don't know. Seems some old versions of 'flashplayer' aren't supported.

SO, here's the same documentary, in YouTube version:

[edit on 4 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by FoosM

In all seriousness, this is one of your best researched essays. The problem is that Apollo was never a cover for any of these activities. They operated in parallel as separate programs through various departments and agencies. They did share a common base of hardware. Both the Atlas and Titan rockets were initially designed as inter-continental ballistic missiles. The Saturn series, however, was specifically designed for the requirements of Project Apollo. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of the Corona series, no military or intelligence hardware was launched under false pretenses. That is why you are able to find information about the Keyhole series, for example.

The primary"hidden" motivation for Project Apollo was economic. The dominant economic model of the time was Neo-Keynesian. By investing government money into developing the aerospace sector, the US would have the infra-structure to out-compete in the emerging global market in space based services.

This latest essay shows that you are not without skill in assembling facts. The problem is that you don't always construct valid arguments, possibly because you are to busy bending them to "prove" that Apollo was a hoax. It wasn't. The US paid for it because they expected it to reap dividends. You don't waste money on a hoax. You use a big, patriotic sounding project to justify building the hardware you need to monopolize the satellite communications market. Who's your mobile phone provider?

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:27 AM
I was reading about the discussion regarding a secret space program and I couldn't resist posting this classic thread from Mike Singh (Most of you who have been on ATS for a while are already familiar with this thread).

The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

There are many things that counter this "Aussie Genius" in his moon hoax debate, all of which are pretty difficult to dismiss..

In July of 2009, LRO photographed the landing sites for Apollo 11, 14, 15, 16 & 17.

LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was able to image five of the six Apollo sites, with the remaining Apollo 12 site expected to be photographed in the coming weeks.

The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

Only one they didn't photograph immediately was Apollo 12 which was imaged a couple weeks later and publicly released in September of the same year.

Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3

This image from LRO shows the spacecraft's first look at the Apollo 12 landing site. The Intrepid lunar module descent stage, experiment package (ALSEP) and Surveyor 3 spacecraft are all visible. Astronaut footpaths are marked with unlabeled arrows. This image is 824 meters (about 900 yards) wide. The top of the image faces North. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University

Also, the LLRE's (Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment) still exist exactly where they were placed on the videos from the era. They're still used pretty much daily to gauge the distance between the earth and the moon.

Aside from all this, and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, there's still a big discrepancy in the test results given for the moon rocks we retrieved during the apollo missions.

Some of the dates we've given to these moon rocks are older than even the OLDEST rock ever radiometricly tested on planet earth. We know that the scientific method of radiometric dating is solid. So, how can moon rocks be older than the oldest rocks ever found on planet earth?

I talked more about this in THIS post from one of Zorgon's old threads.

Most scientists currently belive the earth is around 3.8 billion years old.. Mainly, we get this date from radiometric dating of rocks (sometimes called radiocactive dating). All based on the never-changing decay rates of radioactive isotopes.

It now appears that MOST of the moon rocks retrieved during the apollo missions are, indeed, around 4.5 billion years old. Wikipedia sais some of basaltic type samples retrived from the lunar Maria have been dated to around 3.16 billion years.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by BlasteR]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:46 AM
reply to post by BlasteR

The oldest rocks found on Earth are 4.28 billion years old. And the Earth is thought to be about 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest lunar rocks have been dated at 4.46 billion years. The youngest lunar rock (a meteorite) has been dated at 2.865 billion years.

But the "discrepancy" between the ages of rocks is not difficult to resolve. The Earth is geologically active, the majority of its rocks are recycled by tectonic activity, the oldest rocks descending back under the crust and melting, which "resets" the radiological clock. This is not the case with the moon. Far more of its rocks have not be reformed.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by Phage]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL I love this thread. I now know why it continues on. It is so a certain clique can get stars in each post they make. What an easy way to "earn" stars.

Yet more finger pointing and no actual point. You can't prove anyone cares about stars, just like you 'claim' people can't prove anyone want to the moon. It does nothing for the debate. Foos would call it straw.

Furthermore your confidence that people refuting means that FoosM is making progress is just plain false. There are plenty of threads fully of many many posts about people refuting the existence of all kinds of things from unicorns to dark and light Gods, to people claiming to be zombie investigators. People reply for a number of reasons - some to be helpful, some cos they like correcting people, and others because they have something to add.

Why you post is a mystery I'm not sure we will ever unravel, but around 90% of your posts are pointless one or two liners without any information.

At least I enjoy FoosM's ideas from time to time even if i don't agree with them.

P.S - could one of you ask Jarrah White to address Satweaver's photos please? I am curious to see his video'd reply on this subject.

I posted the link to them sometime ago.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Pinke]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:41 AM
Many long time readers of this thread will recall my post linking SFX technology & storylines and persons of movies to the faking the moon landing. You may recall there was a reference to the film "Diamonds are Forever". In researching about the shuttle and other aspects of NASA I came across another James Bond connection: Moonraker.

first published by Jonathan Cape on April 7, 1955

Now there is connecting dots and then there is jumping to conclusions.
Im well aware of that.
So I will present this as a fun connection and I'll let you jump to your own conclusions.

The original story:

M asks James Bond to investigate the multi-millionaire businessman Sir Hugo Drax, who is winning a lot of money playing bridge at M's favorite club, Blades. M suspects Drax of cheating, but although claiming indifference, he is concerned why a multi-millionaire and national hero, such as Sir Hugo, would cheat at a card game. Bond confirms Drax's deception and manages to "cheat the cheater" — aided by a cocktail of powdered Benzedrine mixed with non-vintage champagne and a deck of stacked cards — winning £15,000 and infuriating the out-smarted Drax.
Drax is the product of a mysterious background, unknown even to himself (allegedly). As a supposed British soldier in WWII, he was badly injured, and stricken with amnesia, in the explosion of a bomb planted by a German saboteur at his field headquarters. After extensive rehabilitation in an army hospital, however, he would eventually return home to become a major aerospace industrialist.

Now, Drax and his firm are building the "Moonraker", Britain's first nuclear missile project, intended to defend the United Kingdom against its Cold War enemies (c.f. the real Blue Streak missile). Essentially, the Moonraker rocket is an upgraded V-2 rocket using liquid hydrogenand fluorine as propellants. It can withstand the ultra-high combustion temperatures in its engine thanks to the use of columbite, of which Drax has a monopoly. Therefore, because the rocket's engine can withstand higher heat, the Moonraker can use more powerful fuels, greatly expanding its effective range.

After a Ministry of Supply security officer working at the project is shot dead, M assigns Bond to replace him, and also to investigate what may be going on at the missile-building base, which is located between Dover and Deal on the coast of England. Oddly, all of the rocket scientists working on the project seem to be German.

It turns out that Drax was never a British soldier and has never suffered from amnesia. In fact, he was a German commander of a Skorzeny commando unit and the saboteur (in British uniform) Graf Hugo von der Drache who set the bomb at the army field headquarters, only to be injured, himself, in the detonation. The amnesia story was simply a cover he used while recovering in hospital, in order to avoid allied retribution - though it would lead to a whole new British identity. Drax, however, remains a dedicated Nazi, bent on revenge against England for the wartime defeat of his Third Reich Fatherland and his prior history of social slights he suffered as a youth growing up in England before the war. He now means to destroy London with the very missile he has constructed for Britain, by means of a Soviet supplied nuclear warhead that has been secretly fitted to the "Moonraker". He also plays the stock market the day before to make a huge profit from the planned disaster.

Anyone gets the sense that Graf Hugo von der Drach is Werner von Braun? I mean... V2 rocket? And playing the stock market before a planned disaster??? Well Ill leave that one for the 9/11, Gulf Oil leak conspirators to play with. But lets go further and make a real world connection.

The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) under General Eisenhower issued a directive to create T-Forces soon after the Normandy Landings. T-Forces were ordered to "identify, secure, guard and exploit valuable and special information, including documents, equipment and persons of value to the Allied armies". T-Force units were attached to the three army groups on the western front; the Sixth United States Army Group, 21st Army Group and 12th Army Group. The targets of the T-Force were selected and recommended by the Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee (CIOS).[2] T-Force units were lightly armed and highly mobile.

The success of 30 Assault Unit, a unit that had been created by Ian Fleming whilst working in Royal Navy intelligence was a key factor in the decision to create 'Target Force', normally referred to as T-Force. Fleming sat on the committee that selected targets for the unit, helping to create what were known as the 'Black Books' which were issued to officers of the unit. The infantry component of T-Force was formed by the 5th Battalion of the King's Regiment to support 2nd British Army and Bucks Battalion of 1st Ox and Bucks to support the 1st Canadian Army. It was responsible for securing targets of interest to the British military and included nuclear laboratories, gas research centres and rocket scientists. The unit's most notable coup was the advance on the German port of Kiel where it captured the research centre where the engines for German rockets, missiles, jet fighters and high speed U Boats had been designed. Ian Fleming used elements of this story in his 1955 James Bond novel Moonraker. The story of T-Force and Fleming's connection to its work remained unknown until revealed in Sean Longden's book on the subject.

Something tells me I better skip the movies and go read the James Bond novels
Who knows, IAN might have put some hidden codes in there

[edit on 5-8-2010 by FoosM]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by FoosM

Ian Fleming hated Germans even more than he disliked Russians and people who wore hats while driving. This is certainly due to the fact that his father was killed by Germans during WWI. The most significant, oracular, statement in "Moonraker" is, and I quote from memory "the little man with a heavy suitcase," the first reference to non-state nuclear terrorism.I'm not sure where you're going with this one, FoosM, but at least it's a refreshing change for the moment.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:19 AM

The Saturn series, however, was specifically designed for the requirements of Project Apollo. To the best of my knowledge,

Im very curious about this.
My research has revealed the following:

The original impetus for Saturn envisioned a brawny booster to launch Department of Defense payloads. The von Braun team at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) received money from the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency to demonstrate the concept. Furthermore, von Braun's group eventually became the nucleus of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).


The Saturn family of American rocket boosters was developed by a team of mostly German rocket scientists led by Wernher von Braun to launch heavy payloads to Earth orbit and beyond. Originally proposed as a military satellite launcher, they were adopted as the launch vehicles for the Apollo moon program.

Basically Saturn was envisioned prior to Apollo.

The transfer of ABMA, Saturn, and the von Braun team was phased over a period of nearly six months. NASA's technical direction of Saturn dated from a memorandum signed by Glennan on 21 October 1959 and by the acting Secretary of Defense, Thomas Gates, on 30 October, and approved by Eisenhower on 2 November. The document affirmed continuing joint efforts of NASA and the Department of Defense in the development and utilization of ICBM and IRBM missiles as space vehicles. Pointing out that there was "no clear military requirement for super boosters," the memorandum stated that "there is a definite need for super boosters for civilian space exploration purposes, both manned and unmanned. Accordingly, it is agreed that the responsibility for the super booster program should be vested in NASA."

So before Kennedy there was already plans to go for the moon (Which would answer my earlier question):

The working group conjectured that the United States might put into operation a four-man space station in 1961 with the use of the ICBM boosters. By using clustered boosters, with first flights beginning in 1961, the committee estimated a manned lunar landing in 1965-1966. The clustered vehicles would also support the deployment of a 50-man space station in 1967, and the fifth generation of boosters would support sizable moon exploration expeditions in 1972, set up a permanent moon base in 1973-1974, and launch manned interplanetary trips in 1977. "The milestones listed... are considered feasible and obtainable as indicated by the supporting information presented in the body of the report," the working group concluded

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. A number of political factors affected Kennedy's decision and the timing of it. In general, Kennedy felt great pressure to have the United States "catch up to and overtake" the Soviet Union in the "space race." Four years after the Sputnik shock of 1957, the cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first human in space on April 12, 1961, greatly embarrassing the U.S. While Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, he only flew on a short suborbital flight instead of orbiting the Earth, as Gagarin had done. In addition, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in mid-April put unquantifiable pressure on Kennedy. He wanted to announce a program that the U.S. had a strong chance at achieving before the Soviet Union. After consulting with Vice President Johnson, NASA Administrator James Webb, and other officials, he concluded that landing an American on the Moon would be a very challenging technological feat, but an area of space exploration in which the U.S. actually had a potential lead. Thus the cold war is the primary contextual lens through which many historians now view Kennedy's speech.

The decision involved much consideration before making it public, as well as enormous human efforts and expenditures to make what became Project Apollo a reality by 1969. Only the construction of the Panama Canal in modern peacetime and the Manhattan Project in war were comparable in scope. NASA's overall human spaceflight efforts were guided by Kennedy's speech; Projects Mercury (at least in its latter stages), Gemini, and Apollo were designed to execute Kennedy's goal. His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module's ladder and onto the Moon's surface.

But still, where did they get that confidence? Or were they just dreamers? Now what could throw a wrench into those original plans? We will get back to that in a second....

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by FoosM

The Saturn program eventually included three basic vehicles: Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V. Chapter 3 describes the events that led to these three separate rockets, whose configuration evolved out of the choice to go the moon by means of the lunar orbit rendezvous technique. MSFC began development of facilities to develop and test the mammoth boosters. Chapter 3 concludes with a discussion of the design and manufacture of lower-stage boosters for the Saturn I and Saturn IB.
The Saturn "family" of rockets may have started with an attempt to build a "big dumb booster" based on the V-2, but it's evolution was conditioned by the needs of the Apollo program. Ultimately, all rocketry can be traced to military roots, so what's your point?

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:42 AM
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Lets reflect why NASA even exists:

Senator Lyndon Johnson remembered a “pro- found shock of realizing that it might be possible for another nation to achieve technological superiority over this great country of ours. Most Americans shared my sense of shock that October night. . . . [Sputnik] plunged the America of 1957 into spiritual depression [and] depreciated our prestige. Russia’s image as a technological leader suddenly increased to alarming proportions and our own image diminished, especially among the people of the developing nations.” One congressman, also a historian, summarized, “The prairie fire of demands for action swept across the Nation. The clamor rose to a roar.

This was not merely partisan posturing as Killian also sensed a “climate of near hysteria” among many people, “some of whom should have known better.” He concluded that Sputnik had created “a crisis of confidence that swept the country like a windblown forest fire. Overnight there developed a wide- spread fear that the country lay at the mercy of the Russian military machine and that our own government and its mili- tary arm had abruptly lost the power to defend the homeland itself.” The tone shown in a Washington Post article repre- sented that taken by most major media outlets: “Not even the most dim-witted State Department official needed more than a second glance at those news bulletins on Sputnik to realize that the United States had suffered the worst psychological licking in the history of its relations and struggle with the So- viet Union and the Communist World. The United States could no longer proclaim the supremacy of its industrial machine or of the capitalist free system of economics.”

T. Keith Glennan, NASA’s first and only administrator during the Eisenhower administration, commented on the cata- lyst for NASA’s creation: “I think you ought to realize first that NASA was born out of a state of hysteria; that, indeed, if Sputnik number one had not been put into orbit, it is highly improbable that there would be a NASA.” Eisenhower himself concurred, later saying NASA’s “whole program was based on psychological values. . . . The furor produced by Sputnik was really the reason for the creation of NASA.” Eisenhower did not like being forced to react to the nation’s unmerited panic. His son recalled, “I think the public became hysterical, and he couldn’t figure out why they were,” which caused his father to question, “What the hell are they [the public] worried about?” Eisenhower believed his challenge was “to find [a] way of af- fording perspective to our people and so relieve the wave of near -hysteria.

First, space exploration must not endanger—in any way—the process of gathering intelligence on the Soviet Union through the use of reconnaissance satellites, and second, space exploration was not to be regarded as a prestige-oriented race with the Soviet Union. NASA’s creation supported both of these objectives.

Eisenhower didnt want a Space Race. Think back and consider this quote at the top of this post.

Such declarations led historians to conclude that Eisenhower ignored the clear warning in NSC 5520 of a potentially negative psychological impact on the nation if the Soviets were to launch a satellite first. Nor was he swayed by similar NSC and OCB’s entreaties to mitigate those likely prestige ramifications when determining Vanguard’s schedule. Although the words were present in the pre-Sputnik-policy documents, his presidential commitment was lacking. Eisenhower acknowledged this during a press conference on 9 October 1957 as he recounted some of the Vanguard program deliberations: “More than once we would say, well, there is going to be a great psychological advantage in world politics to putting this thing up. But that didn’t seem to be a reason, in view of the scientific character of our development, there didn’t seem to be a reason for just trying to grow hysterical about it.” The written statement distributed to the press stated, “Our satellite program has never been conducted as a race with other nations.” The same pattern continued—even after NASA’s creation. The Eisenhower administration understood that great prestige would accrue to the nation that first flew a human in space, but its efforts continued to be conducted as though it was not a race.

under no circumstances did we want to make the thing a competition, because a race always implies urgency and special progress regardless of cost or need. . . . Neither then nor since have I ever agreed that it was wise to base any of these projects on an openly and announced com- petition with any country. This kind of thing is unnecessary, wasteful and violates the basic tenets of common sense.”

Quarles testified to Congress on 18 November 1957: “We must not be panicked or pushed into any sudden dispersion of effort. . . . We must not be talked into ‘hitting the moon with a rocket,’ for example, just to be first,
unless by doing so we stand to gain something of real scientific or military significance.”

Eisenhower had to accept—to a small degree— the legitimacy of the prestige factor to help justify NASA.

According to the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), Eisenhower approved this project because the bal- loon’s “psychological value from the standpoint of free use for every nation,” and of the options available, it “appears to be the best psychological-scientific experiment.” Similarly, in December 1958, he authorized Project SCORE (Signal Com- munication Orbit Relay Experiment) that launched a payload made up of a stripped-down Atlas booster, weighing 9,000 lbs.— 100 lbs. of which was communications equipment. That payload played, for eight days, a tape-recorded message from Eisenhower stating, “I convey to you and to all mankind America’s wish for peace on earth and good will toward men everywhere.” It also allowed the United States to boast that it had orbited a “satellite” of over four tons—even though most of the weight was an expended booster. Said one historian, “Technically, it was all a stunt.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:02 PM
Sigh.... I really don't see the point in continuing this when Hoaxers won't even acknowledge the most elementary of their errors. Point after point after point they get shot down but then continues on to the next argument without any concession. Bad form.

It has already been established that White will knowingly lie to further his agenda. He has said so explicitly. What more is there to say about such a person?
What credibility has he?

The trick here is that they have not provided a stronger case for their arguments than their opponents. The logical conclusion is that we must accept the best explanation, not the fantasy some would have us believe.

Regardless, I fully expect the Hoaxers to carry on as usual -- oblivious to fact and established history.

Edited for grammar.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Smack]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:42 AM
NASA might of started under Eisenhower, Apollo under Kennedy, and the landings happened during Nixon. but who was really the force behind manned space travel?


Kennedy as president had little direct interest in the U.S. space program. He was not a visionary enraptured with the romantic image of the last American frontier in space and consumed by the adventure of exploring the unknown. He was, on the other hand, a Cold Warrior with a keen sense of Realpolitik in foreign affairs, and worked hard to maintain balance of power and spheres of influence in American/Soviet relations. The Soviet Union's non-military accomplishments in space, therefore, forced Kennedy to respond and to serve notice that the U.S. was every bit as capable in the space arena as the Soviets. Of course, to prove this fact, Kennedy had to be willing to commit national resources to NASA and the civil space program. The Cold War realities of the time, therefore, served as the primary vehicle for an expansion of NASA's activities and for the definition of Project Apollo as the premier civil space effort of the nation. Even more significant, from Kennedy's perspective the Cold War necessitated the expansion of the military space program, especially the development of ICBMs and satellite reconnaissance systems.

Kennedy decided to pursue a lunar goal in the spring of 1961 after the Soviet Union orbited Yuri Gagarin. One unknown question for historians is how much Kennedy’s decision was influenced by the near simultaneous failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The two events happened very close together and created the perception that the United States was in technological and political crisis, if not decline.

25 April 1961 - Vice President Johnson made head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council.. President Kennedy signed legislation making the Vice President of the United States the presiding officer of the National Aeronautics and Space Council.

In an interim report to the president on 28 April 1961, Johnson concluded that "The U.S. can, if it will, firm up its objectives and employ its resources with a reasonable chance of attaining world leadership in space during this decade," and recommended committing the nation to a lunar landing.25 In this exercise Johnson had built, as Kennedy had wanted, a strong justification for undertaking Project Apollo but he had also moved on to develop a greater consensus for the objective among key government and business leaders.

Perhaps the strongest indication that Kennedy was having doubts about Apollo, though, came in the fall of 1963, when he made a bold proposal for “a joint expedition to the Moon” during an address before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations.

The day after Kennedy’s speech, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices, congressman Albert Thomas, wrote Kennedy asking if he had changed his position on the need for a strong US space program. Kennedy replied in a letter that the United States could only cooperate in space from a position of strength.

There is one other bit of data to add to the few others that we have. Shortly before his death, Kennedy asked his Bureau of the Budget to prepare a report on the NASA budget for him. That report was never completed in final form, and only a draft produced after Kennedy’s assassination exists. However, that draft evaluated the question of “backing off from the manned lunar landing goal”—presumably this was what Kennedy had asked them to consider. The report’s conclusion was that “in the absence of clear changes in the present technical or international situations, the only basis for backing off from the Manned Lunar Landing objective at this time would be an overriding fiscal decision.”

With so few data points to go by, it is difficult to determine if Kennedy’s UN proposal represented an evolution in his thinking. Could Kennedy have been considering changing the lunar landing goal, or even canceling Apollo entirely? The latter possibility was even mentioned in Oliver Stone’s 1993 paranoid conspiracy thriller JFK; a mysterious informant explained that Kennedy’s plan to cancelApollo was one of the reasons why the military industrial complex had him assassinated.

We in the old NACA were I think mentally circumscribed, to the extent that we never could have realized the potential of growing not six times but sixty times bigger in a short period of time, because we had fought very hard each year in order to get the little increases that we needed in order to build up over a period of a great many years to $100 million a year. . . . It was only that we began to take quantum steps when we began to get quantum bucks. . . . NACA, like every other govern- mental agency, had to fight every year for its appropriations. It never got what it wanted to do its job, and frequently it got appropriations on the basis of “You will use it for this and nothing else.”

It turns out, though, that there are other possibilities besides the assumption that Kennedy was slowly backing away from the decision he had made in 1961, and some of them are hard to believe, but may nevertheless be true.

Conclusion, it wasnt Kennedy.


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by FoosM

The "shadow space program" is a topic worthy of its own thread. It would receive many stars and flags and attract both insightful contributions and posts so bizarre and fantastical that even "moon hoaxers" will roll on the floor laughing. Continuing here is only going to result in all your effort going to waste. Your call.

top topics

<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in