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: 208
377
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The man has a personal attitude, though, of never allowing his walls to come down (at least in public, can't speak for his private life). This trait is VERY common in many men, of course....some are simply better at "bottling it up" than others.


I disagree. When he talks in this clip of removing 'one of truth's protective layers' he looks visibly shaken.

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave YOU much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."



I should also point out how uncomfortable he was at the post Apollo 11 press conference. Very strange behaviour. You can spin it any way you like. These guys were the first to land on the moon. They should have been the happiest people on earth. However what you see is something vastly different.





edit on 1-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added apollo 11 press conference




posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Tired astronaut persons that don't like public life?

Psychoanalysis and vague opinion.

PPK ... bodokon (or whatever his name is) exburent ... probably spelt that wrong too.

Anyway tis all the same. Vague opinion and feelings and some strange desire to keep this thread alive at all costs.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

"Visibly shaken"? I don't see that. Back to that "not happy enough" nonsense?

Yeah, Bart Sibrel's wonderful out of context editing.
Here is the entire speech. I wonder why we didnt' get to see the whole thing in your video. Probably because Bart Sibrel is a lying snake.



edit on 10/1/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ppk55
 

"Visibly shaken"? I don't see that.


I do. In fact if you listen to his voice he quivers quite substantially on the word 'remove'.
In the first video he says the following, and in the full length version he says exactly the same thing.

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave YOU much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

Yes he says that, and a lot more. And in viewing the whole speech you can see him smiling, laughing and joking. You can see he is not "visibly shaken".

In viewing the whole speech you can see he is encouraging the next generation to follow up on the work of earlier generations to find those "great ideas" which have not yet been discovered.

Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are many places to go beyond belief. Those challenges are yours--in many fields, not the least of which is space, because there lies human destiny.


You've bitten Sibrel's hook and swallowed it. Unbelievable. Fished in by a female voice and dramatic music. Fished in by sly editing, pouncing on a single phrase in an inspiring speech. Fished in.



edit on 10/1/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
pouncing on a single phrase


I think this statement deserves to be 'pounced' upon. It's highly unusual and one I've never heard anyone else say.

What do you think Armstrong meant when he said this?

"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

What do you think he meant by truth's protective layers? What truth, and what protective layers?



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

I think he meant exactly what he said. There are many things to be discovered and discovery does not come easily. It's in the context of the entire speech. Listen to it. Understand it.

But of course, Sibrel doesn't want you to do that. He wants you to hear a single "cryptic" phrase as if it has no relationship to the rest of the speech. That's why he only provides the part he wants you to hear. You are being manipulated.



edit on 10/1/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Phage
pouncing on a single phrase


I think this statement deserves to be 'pounced' upon. It's highly unusual and one I've never heard anyone else say.

What do you think Armstrong meant when he said this?

"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

What do you think he meant by truth's protective layers? What truth, and what protective layers?


He meant that there are some situations in science that are accepted as "truth", until someone comes along that is brave enough to stand up to the conventional wisdom and change it.

A good example is plate tectonics.

It's plainly obvious.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
A good example is plate tectonics.


Don't get him onto that, poor little chap will probably get hooked in with the crowd that say all that is fake too

And God put the dinosaur bones there to test us while we're at it



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Interesting news item about China's plans to buy a huge studio:


The probe plans to test technology in preparation for an unmanned moon landing in 2012, with a possible manned lunar mission to follow in 2017.


news.yahoo.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Great find, and nice presentation!


Yes...the Moon is a gigantic "studio"! Well, all of space, as well.

What a shame this sort of thread, and the nonsense that infested it, has to exist in the year 2010.......



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


And how is this relevant?

You'll find many large scientific installations were at least partially funded from foundations and grants.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by zvezdar
 


Perhaps he thought that it was funded by a bake sale or something? Weird isn't it, something costing lots of money is funded by an organisation with.... lots of money. Well how about that?

And maybe NASA don't have the Moon in their sights as a primary target anymore (not because they can't like certain moron's try and imply but because of the spending cuts at the time and Obama's 'change of direction') but thanks to Congress approving a new NASA budget they will be hopefully having a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030.
Much more useful than going somewhere we've already been, on more than one occasion




Obama's space plan also calls for astronauts to visit an asteroid by 2025 and then aim for a manned Mars mission in the 2030s. A heavy-lift rocket for those missions was slated to begin development in 2015.

Under the spending bill approved Wednesday, NASA would be directed to begin work on that heavy-lift rocket in 2011 – four years earlier than the White House proposal.

Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas) said such a rocket is vital for NASA to fulfill its original purpose.

"Our future in space is not in low-Earth orbit. We have to go beyond," Olson said during the vote's debate. "A heavy-lift vehicle will enable us to achieve the true mission of the agency ... to explore."
www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 




And maybe NASA don't have the Moon in their sights as a primary target anymore...


Well, Political winds blow, and ebb.....

The "current" USA administration (perhaps) sees the Moon, being so close relatively speaking, as ripe for more commercialization, perhaps? Meaning, it will be best to let private enterprise go for it, and free up Government funding for more exploration farther afield.

The manned landings on the Moon accomplished a great deal of reconnoiter already, and combined with follow-on robotics, they can do a better job (and cheaper) at this point in time.

Sending HUMANS into space, especially beyond LEO (low earth orbit), is VERY expensive and many magnitudes of order more difficult, than robotics. (Keeping the meat alive, and intact, for LONG TERM space voyage prospects....lots still to learn. A few weeks?? Been done already....) BUT, humans will follow the robots, eventually, wherever robots are sent first. It is going to be the new "norm"....

We (living today) tend to forget that we are LIVING it.....a brief foray through history will show how it is only AFTER the fact, that history shows the changes taking place, that those alive at the time might not have noticed.

Still, just to lighten the mood, there is ONE (past) U.S. President still toiling daily on that "manned Mars mission".....


DALLAS—Speaking from his home in Dallas, former president George W. Bush told reporters Tuesday that when he's not busy giving lectures or writing his memoirs, he spends most of his spare time working on the manned mission to Mars he proposed in January 2004.

"This is genuinely important to me," said Bush, looking over sketches of potential rocket systems he had drawn up while waiting for his oil to be changed at a service station earlier this week. "I wasn't kidding when I announced a plan to get us to Mars, by God, and I intend to finish what I started. That's why I try to carve out a little time before lunch and after dinner to work on this important interplanetary initiative."


(Obviously, someone else wrote those big words for him, like "interplanetary" and "initiative".....oh!!! It was "the Onion"!!!!







edit on 2 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Spell



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The Back Up Plan

(that we know about)




There is one organization whose power and influence is so broad that their advice most certainly, in one way or another, becomes policy.


George Mueller left private industry to become NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight in September 1963. He immediately asked John Disher and Adelbert Tischler, two veteran NASA engineers not directly involved in Apollo, for an independent assessment of the moon program. On September 28, they told Mueller that it could not achieve President Kennedy's goal of a man on the moon by 1970. They estimated that NASA might carry out its first manned moon landing in late 1971.




Many believed that NASA should have backup plans in case the Saturn V or Apollo spacecraft suffered development problems. Eighteen months after Mueller's announcement, E. Harris and J. Brom, engineers with The RAND Corporation think tank, proposed one such backup plan. Their brief report, originally classified "Secret," looked at how NASA might accomplish a manned moon landing by 1970 if the Saturn V could not be certified in time as being safe for astronauts.



RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development) is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is currently financed by the U.S. government, a private endowment, corporations including the healthcare industry, universities and private individuals



RAND was set up in 1946 by the United States Army Air Forces as Project RAND, under contract to the Douglas Aircraft Company, and in May 1946 they released the Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship. In May 1948, Project RAND was separated from Douglas and became an independent non-profit organization. Initial capital for the split came from the Ford Foundation.



The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States' space program, in computing and in artificial intelligence. RAND researchers developed many of the principles that were used to build the Internet. RAND also contributed to the development and use of wargaming.



Since the 1950s, the RAND has been instrumental in defining US military strategy. Their most visible contribution is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), developed under the guidance of then defence secretary Robert McNamara and based upon their work with game theory. Chief strategist Herman Kahn also posited the idea of a "winnable" nuclear exchange in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War. This led to Kahn being one of the models for the titular character of the film Dr. Strangelove



The character is an amalgamation of RAND Corporation strategist Herman Kahn, mathematician and Manhattan Project principal John von Neumann, German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun and Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb."



Harris and Brom's backup plan would see the Apollo Saturn V lift off without astronauts on board. It would expend its S-IC first stage and S-II second stage in turn, then its S-IVB third stage would place unmanned Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM) and Lunar Module (LM) spacecraft into parking orbit about the Earth.



The astronauts would reach Earth orbit separately in a ferry CSM on top of a two-stage Saturn IB rocket (bottom image above). The ferry CSM would carry a special drogue docking unit for docking with the unmanned lunar mission CSM's probe docking unit. The only new system required for the backup plan, the special drogue would need about one year and "perhaps several million dollars" to develop.



The astronauts would dock with and transfer to the lunar mission CSM in Earth orbit, then would cast off the ferry CSM. The remainder of the mission would occur as in NASA's Apollo plan. The astronauts would restart the S-IVB stage to leave Earth orbit for the moon.



NASA officials did not take up the Harris and Brom proposal, though for a time in 1968 they might have wished that they had. The first unmanned Saturn V test flight, Apollo 4, lifted off on November 9, 1967. In keeping with Mueller's 1963 directive, it included complete S-IC, S-II, and S-IVB stages, plus a CSM with LES (top image above). Because LM development had hit snags, a dummy LM rode inside its SLA. The eight-hour Earth-orbital mission was an unqualified success.






Apollo 6 was, however, another story. On April 4, 1968, two minutes into its unmanned flight, the second Saturn V to fly began to shake back and forth along its long axis. Dubbed "pogo" by engineers, the shaking knocked pieces off the SLA and damaged one of the S-II's five engines. Following S-II ignition, the engine underperformed and shut down prematurely, then a control logic flaw caused a healthy engine to shut down. The remaining three S-II engines burned for a minute longer than planned to make up for the lost engines. The S-IVB's single engine then burned for 30 seconds longer than planned to reach a lopsided Earth orbit. Two orbits later, it failed to restart.





The pogo might have injured astronauts; the S-IVB failure would certainly have scrubbed their flight to the moon. Post-flight analysis showed, however, that the pogo and engine failures had simple fixes. After intense internal debate, NASA decided in October 1968 that the third Saturn V should launch Apollo 8 astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders. The giant rocket performed flawlessly, placing the Apollo 8 CSM on course for lunar orbit on December 21, 1968.






To summarize, Apollo could have launched to the moon without anybody onboard.
Exactly what were the astronauts used for?
Planting flags? They certainly didn't seem necessary.
So there very well could have been a space craft called Apollo sent to the moon.
Several times, just like the Surveyors. And just like the Surveyors, as non-manned missions.

Where is the proof that men actually went?

en.wikipedia.org...
beyondapollo.blogspot.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

To summarize, Apollo could have launched to the moon without anybody onboard.
Exactly what were the astronauts used for?



First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior.


The EOR plan was one of several which was rejected, including LOR.


edit on 10/2/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This topic has been beaten down the same road as, dare I say it, the 9/11 Conspiracy. Now, I'll admit that I know very little facts about either, and that is by choice. Willful ignorance, if you will, is my take on these subjects. Though my standpoint is the same on both, my rationale is different for each topic.

For this topic, I choose not to learn the facts because it is irrelevant. It was during the Cold War where the United States had to beat the Soviets, they had to come out on top. It was the same way for both sides, to see who had the bigger stick. With this stunt, I will call it, we arguably won the Space Race and brought the end of the the Cold War that much closer.

With that said, does it really matter if we made it to the moon or not when the real mission was to beat the Russians? No, it really doesn't matter now. It mattered then, but it certainly doesn't matter now. Sure, it will show the dishonesty of Government, but who doesn't know that already?

This debate, and any debate concerning this topic, is nothing more than a publicity stunt in my mind. If you prove NASA wrong and prove that the United States did not land on the moon when it was claimed so, then what? What have you accomplished? Will the world be a better place?

My two cents on the matter. You can take it or leave it.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I think he meant exactly what he said. There are many things to be discovered and discovery does not come easily.


Ok I can go along with that, but you kind of side stepped the really curious bit..

"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

What do you think he is talking about in regards to 'one of truth's protective layers'?
What protective layer of truth do you think he is talking about removing?



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

For crying out loud. Look at the entirety of his speech. Quit focusing on that single phrase just because Sibrel wants you to. You are being manipulated.

Armstrong was speaking poetically, inspirationally. He wasn't talking about any one thing.

We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are many places to go beyond belief. Those challenges are yours--in many fields, not the least of which is space, because there lies human destiny.




edit on 10/2/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Quit focusing on that single phrase just because Sibrel wants you to/

It was Neil Armstrong that made this statement, no one else.

"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

Why can't you just offer your opinion courteously on what the protective layers of truth he is talking about are, and why one of them should be removed. I'm sure we can discuss this without the insults.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join