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: 223
377
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


It is impossible to convince people that are so entrenched in their own personal fantasy that was projected onto their psyche from birth to death by this fascist country that their vision of the world is PROGRAMMED by people other than themselves
they have no free will
they refuse to acknowledge any type of information that might call into question their so precious belief system
which will make them see that black as it is told to us is really white
arbeit macht frei
right

they do not understand that the LM had only so much space
and any such entity that is sound and worthwhile would have made sure that several redundant measures were built into the model for safety reasons

they did this so called mission with the least amount of weight possible due to the supposed fuel supply that is one of my arguments

that means that the space craft only had so much space and the load had to be perfectly balanced

anyone with with a modicum of scientific know how would know that sending "men to the moon" would be appropriate only if many redundant applications were built into every aspect of the Lunar Module in order to ensure safety

but no such devices were present

on top of that the lunar rocks that were gathered carried weight as well as the lunar rover which so neatly folded up to a compact size
although the rover was left upon return
when in use on the surface of the moon it left the astronauts open to intense space radiation
deadly space radiation
they are now trying to build a shield on such a rover to protect the astronauts from such radiation
my question is why don't they use more of what they used the first time
it would seem like we already have the tech and it is 40 years old
what happened to innovation moon landing who believe the lies

i am shocked that after reading this article that more people do not realize that a conspiracy is afoot

why not just use more of what we used in the 60's protect the astronauts against this deadly radiation
it worked then and in very small amounts due to weight constraints due to the fuel load
it would seem like more of it would be more than adequate for the 30 to 40% increase that was NOT originally expected

this is very similar to the act of convincing preachers who have wholly dedicated themselves to a mythical man in the sky that dispenses punishment and reward arbitrarily but yet he made up for his mistakes by sending his son to die a horrific death by suffocating to death on the cross after being beaten half to death and humiliated
how in the world can one convince such "true believers" that they were not correct and that their judgment was based upon fantasy and conjecture
but mostly well timed propaganda from birth

the numbers do not lie on their side

only numbers given to them by the same government that i am accusing of a cover up

this entire episode is a farce and we cannot let these cats continued personal attacks and lack of empirical evidence (other than the "official NASA" account) take us off track

keep up the good fight my friend and know that in the end all truths come to the light

a lie cannot be held as a truth for long
just look at
-pearl harbor
-the gulf of tonkin
-torture of arabs in abu ghraib
-the sinking of the lusitania
-the experiments that were MK ultra
-the one million dollar lawsuit won by Paul Bonnaci against Larry King that proved that he was the victim of a cross country pedophilia ring that was run by the pedophocracy
-the vaccine autism debate that has a special court that has already processed over 7500 cases and paid out over one and a half billion dollars to victims with 5000 more cases pending
-the 911 fiasco that now have a more than critical mass of number of engineers and architects and actors and firemen and policemen and family members of the dead and everyday citizens who are collectively fighting to get out the truth
-in the latest round of voting the state of new york did not allow the citizens to vote on a referendum calling for a new investigation into 911 even though the citizens had considerably more than the necessary signatures to put the vote on the ballot
the feds put the brakes on the referendum
unconstitutionally i might add
-the moon landing is just another cog in this puzzle of intrique and deciet

just keep up the fight and remember four things

1)never take anything personally (that is their number one weapon)
2)always be impeccable with your word
3)always do your best
4)make no assumptions

keep up the good fight my friend

edit on 10/17/2010 by Josephus23 because: the TRUTH shall set you free




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





"It is impossible to convince people that are so entrenched in their own personal fantasy..."


I completely agree. I showed you that you were wrong and you don't even have the common courtesy to admit it.
How does that help your credibility?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The shoebox calculation was intended to place your "sandbag" calculation into perspective. You did not specify the size of the sandbag in order to create the impression of bulk. It is much easier to visualize the volume of the samples in terms of something manageable, like shoeboxes. From the rest of your post it is clear that you did not understand the rest of my calculations, if you did you would be dubious about the NASA source you quote. If nothing else, are those earth-pounds or moon-pounds?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


You seem to be avoiding the very subject you were keen to bring up so I'll ask you again:

Please publish your exact mathematical calculations showing that it was not possible for Apollo to leave Earth orbit and complete it's mission. While complicated and time consuming it is more than possible and regardless of what you think concerning NASA, they don't decide the laws of physics.
You have obviously carried out these calculations as they the only sensible and logical way to come to any conclusions, I'm sure your not stupid and mentally deficient enough to think that your opinion would count just because you 'feel' it couldn't be done or something equally ludicrous? Or are you?

That is a direct question and I expect a direct answer, don't take it as another cue to ramble on about JFK, 9/11 and any other popular conspiracy and how we can't trust the government. The government's ethics are not the subject here, the technical feasibility of Apollo is. Or are you trying to say because the Government are deeply flawed nothing they do can possibly be true? I hear they breathe air, but I expect that's 'Gubmint lies' too is it?
I'll ask again for good measure to help it sink in:

Provide us with your mathematical workings and results please that were used to reach your conclusion.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


And it all boils down to the same old thing, a self proclaimed awareness, in which the subject proclaims he saw the light, figured out the plot against humanity and became free of any government control. Now shouting in a dessert trying to wake up the dumb sheep who seem to be blind to his brilliant insights. How can that be he wonders, its all so obvious.

I am not a psychologist, just recognizing a very common pattern I see on ATS. If I had to guess it comes from a strong desire to be special in an otherwise regular and boring life. I guess we all have this desire to some degree, although among many conspiracy believers it has grown to an unhealthy level. Engaging into a debate will probably just make the believes stronger.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Completely misread his post, better read it again


edit on 18-10-2010 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


I can not prove calculations where half of the math is missing

the only information that is given to us is given to us by nasa

i will not rely upon any STATE SPONSORED INFORMATION to give me the numbers to calculate

but it is so easy to see the holes that are rife through out the "official storyline"
I am growing somewhat weary of these personal attacks

I would recommend that you and the other 5 posters who seem to want to attack me personally read the terms and conditions of this board

Here is an example




I'm sure your not stupid and mentally deficient enough to think that your opinion would count just because you 'feel' it couldn't be done or something equally ludicrous? Or are you?


we do not attack posters but their arguments

I have seen about one quarter of the attacks actually be against my statements
and the rest devolve into name calling and other such childish endeavors

I bid you a fine fairwell AgentSmith

while I have been complimentary and cordial throughout

"he who employs emotion lacks the ability to employ reason'
-Cicero

You might never know
we might actually agree on something and be on the same team one day

I wouldn't burn your bridges so readily
edit on 10/18/2010 by Josephus23 because: to show this individual common courtesy and gentlemanly debating skills



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Moving from Rocks to Rockets



Originally posted by Josephus23

Wenher Von Braun said that the amount of fuel needed to go to the moon and back was not possible

Here is a link from another website discussing the same issue and this cat also thinks that we went to the moon



But from 1952 to 1954, von Braun (and others including science fiction author Willy Ley, with illustrations by science fiction cover artist Chesley Bonestell), laid out a plan for how human beings could explore and eventually colonize outer space, in a series of articles in Collier's Weekly magazine entitled "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!" As with everything von Braun did, the math and the engineering are impeccable. You see, there's a basic problem with the physics of long-distance rocket travel. To go higher, farther, or faster you need more fuel. Which adds more weight. To lift more weight, you need more fuel. Which adds more weight, ad infinitum. To get to the Moon in a hurry, we used an expensive, fragile, and impractical solution: increasingly smaller disposable rocket "stages." Just to get to orbit we used three disposable stages. Then a fourth stage was used to boost the combined lander/return vehicle to the moon. Then yet another disposable stage was used to land on the Moon. Then one more disposable stage, the size of a handicapped bathroom stall, was used to lift off from the moon; as soon as it reached lunar orbit, it was thrown away. Then the Earth-orbit-to-lunar-orbit rocket used the last of its fuel for the return trip to Earth orbit and then it, too was thrown away. Finally a tiny little bitty re-entry capsule, just big enough for the three guys to lie down in and to hold its own parachutes, was the only part of the space ship to return to Earth. Why so many disposable parts? Because it lets you throw away empty fuel tanks, and even though those fuel tanks were built of the lightest, thinnest, most expensive metal alloys available, every tiny little bit of weight saved was essential.


link to quote



Josephus23, have you heard of Stanislav Pokrovsky?


Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959)[1] is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK".[1]
In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[1] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth


secondly


In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine,[1] whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on


Furthermore

He says that fifteen specialists with scientific degrees (e.g. Alexander Budnik)[1] who reviewed his paper, of which at least five aerodynamics experts and three narrow specialists in ultrasonic movement and aerosols, raised no objections in principle, and the specific wishes and notes they (e.g. Vladimir Surdin)[1] did have could not change his results significantly even if followed.[1][1] Pokrovsky compares his own frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Saturn V flight to the frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Trinity nuclear test (1945) done by the Soviet academician Leonid Sedov who created his own blast wave theory to estimate the then top secret power of the explosion



Have you heard of Alexander Popov?


Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[1]
Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[1] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[1][1] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[1] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:
Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.


Here is a kicker:

He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[1][1] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.


Hmmmm..... USSR covering up for the US?


Yuri Mukhin
Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (b. 1949), Russian opposition politician, publicist, writer, engineer, metallurgist, manager, and inventor. Author of the books "The Moon affair of the USA" (2006)[1] and "A Moon affair" (2009),[1] and the film "Maximum lies and nonsense" (2010).[1] In his works, he examines the differences between the Soviet and US lunar soil found out by Western researchers, refutes the NASA defenders' arguments, and accuses the US government for plundering the taxpayers' money for the Moon programme. Mukhin states that the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was blackmailed by the USA that if the USSR denounces the Moon hoax, the US will denounce the Soviet partocracy before his people, revealing that Khrushchev had killed Stalin and Beria




Colonel Frank Frederick Borman, II (b. 1928), Gemini 7 and Apollo 8 flight commander. He visited the USSR just before the Apollo 11 flight[1] (as Alexander Popov says, to reconnoitre whether the Russians believed in the Apollo 8 orbiting the Moon and help decide if they can "swallow" a much larger Apollo 11 Moon landing hoax).[1] He was also one of the Skylab programme managers


And of course the famous, if it was so doggone good, why did they stop using it?

If the Saturn V carried the International Space Station (ISS) modules, which are now not heavier than 20 t, their mass could quadruple while their number be reduced four times, along with the number of the docking assemblies for space rendezvous, whose mass is now about one-seventh of the mass of the entire ISS. The number of the dangerous space rendezvous procedures would also be reduced. The cost of the two Proton rockets and one Space Shuttle used to carry three ISS modules is roughly equal to the cost of one Saturn V. And the ISS cost is thousands of times greater than the Saturn V service cost. Also, the launching cost for 1 kg of cargo using the Space Shuttle turns out to be much higher than using the Saturn V.[1](drawing 4) But for some reason, the Americans have money for the "prodigal" Shuttles and not for the "frugal" Saturns. And why is the F-1 engine no longer used but the US Atlas V rocket uses the Russian RD-180 engines instead that are nothing else but one half of the RD-170/171 engines of the Soviet Energia and Zenith rockets?



The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when... I ask my friends and readers to get behind Obama's new policy. Join with me and help usher in a new age of space. A space programme that truly goes somewhere!

—Dr Buzz Aldrin (born Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr), astronaut, the Apollo 11 lunar module pilot


en.metapedia.org...



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
I can not prove calculations where half of the math is missing

Thank you for admitting that you are ignorant of the topic, and are unable or unwilling to find out the truth.

YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN LINKS WITH THE INFORMATION.

YOU CAN VERIFY THE INFORMATION ABOUT ORBITAL PHYSICS WITH OPEN SOURCE, PUBLIC INFORMATION.

Yet you CHOOSE not to do so. You WISH to remain ignorant, as you MUST do, so as to have your fantasy.


but it is so easy to see the holes that are rife through out the "official storyline"

And yet every one of the 'holes' you have claimed is:
- not backed up by any facts or logic at all
- easily proven incorrect by NON-NASA sources


I am growing somewhat weary of these personal attacks

And I am somewhat weary of your obfuscation, your deliberate misinformation, and your ignorant ranting.


I would recommend that you and the other 5 posters who seem to want to attack me personally read the terms and conditions of this board

I would recommend that you start to debate with informed opinion, stop lying, take a long hard look at yourself, AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU. Then watch the aggravation vanish...



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I think this board would do good by stopping this charade, and either move this to the hoax section where it belongs or close the thread. It is not like any new information is being added, everything has been thoroughly debunked. This thread has started to serve a totally different function, either some sort mental satisfaction of some individuals or promotion of those videos. Both are not in the interest of this board.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Oh dear oh dear :shk:

So you haven't heard of Orbital Mechanics than? I'll help you out with a starter:

en.wikipedia.org...

So it begs the question, how did you come to your conclusion that they couldn't go?
If you refuse to believe physics or the data supplied, what is your basis exactly for it being impossible? What hidden data and laws are you using to base your assertion upon? You say it was physically impossible, yet demonstrate a lack of understanding of physics and state you don't believe any of it? That doesn't actually make sense...

You're statements are clearly based solely on your hatred of NASA and have absolutely no scientific base whatsoever. You have only succeeded in demonstrating that you don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of the subject matter to form an educated opinion, as usual the HB stance is dominated by ignorance and emotion while completely ignoring science and knowledge.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I think this board would do good by stopping this charade, and either move this to the hoax section where it belongs or close the thread. It is not like any new information is being added, everything has been thoroughly debunked. This thread has started to serve a totally different function, either some sort mental satisfaction of some individuals or promotion of those videos. Both are not in the interest of this board.


Here, chew on this for awhile.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Careful though, its hard facts that might crack your molars.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


All of the figures required to calculate an Apollo trajectory and sufficiency of burn times has been provided in this thread. If you really want to continue with your line of inquiry then you should do the calculations to prove your point. Otherwise you dont actually have an argument, just an opinion backed by absolutely nothing.

PS: I dont believe for a second that are a 'researcher' by profession, and i dont think anyone else does either.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by Josephus23
 



PS: I dont believe for a second that are a 'researcher' by profession, and i dont think anyone else does either.


I dont think so either. A perfectly reasonable question to ask said 'researcher" is what journals (or books, or proceedings, etc) they have published in. You dont need to be any more specific than that for the purpose of anonymity. Having such information would be sufficient for me to determine (from dialogue) whether that person had conducted research in that field. In some cases it would tell me if they had ever engaged in research at all.

How does one have such skills?

As a senior lecturer, and employer in private and academic R&D, I have conducted endless job interviews, in person, over the phone, read endless job cover letters, resumes etc etc etc. The phoneys stand out very clearly, and they dont get a 2nd interview thats for sure!! I dont even bother showing them the lab if they are really bad



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So what calculations did you do to confirm your source, which, by it's own account claims:


Metapedia has a metapolitical purpose, to influence the mainstream debate, culture and historical view.


And features as its "interesting quote:"


Interesting quotations
Governments run by Jews are democracies. Governments dispensing with Jews are dictatorships.
- quote from William Dudley Pelley's magazine Liberation

Metapedia Main Page


Furthermore Metapedia gives us the opportunity to present a more balanced and fair image of the pro-European struggle for the general public as well as for academics, who until now have been dependent on strongly biased and hostile “researchers” like Searchlight, Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and such.

From the Metapedia Mission Statement.

In other words, it's a fascist wiki. Pro Aryan, anti- semitic, Islam, black, black, American. They would never lie any more than a Soviet scientist would lie to the Politburo to gain favor.

Think about it FoosM: I put more faith in my own calculations, which you still don't understand, than I do in a statement by a NASA tech writer. You would rather blindly believe a statement by a self proclaimed propaganda mill that confirms your prejudices than perform your own calculations to check their accuracy. You, like certain others here, have fallen into the trap of believing authorities on faith. They're not really authorities, but they say things you like so you accept them without question. Dig up Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky's paper (if it exists) and confirm his figures. If you don't, you're just blindly accepting Authority.

Edit to add: Did you even bother to click on any of the "footnotes?" They're all dead links! You have quoted a lengthy work of academic fiction!

edit on 18-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Stated above.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Are you including me in that "rest of you" statement? You demanded "SHOW ME THE NUMBERS." I did. I even explained how you could begin to interpret them. You did not say "thank you," but you are welcome anyway. Best of luck in your academic career.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You can't be serious??? Boy, you are getting desperate.....it shows more and more.

DJW already slammed your so-called "source" on this, but let's take ANOTHER look at just one segment from this so-called "Russian scientist" (who is younger than me, BTW...):


Originally posted by FoosM

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959) is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK".
In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11. Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s)....


SO, let me see if I got this straight...this idiot "analyzed films" of the Apollo Saturn V launches?? AND, arrived at this "most accurate" (
) "calculation" of its ultimate velocity??? Oh, brother!!! And, you FELL FOR THIS CRAP????

The fact that the ACTUAL speeds are easily verifiable, and NOT just from NASA sources, that fact you would have us conveniently overlook?? Wow.....

Newsflash for you.....the SPEED of a body in orbit is rather fixed, by the perigee/apogee height, and the gravitational force of the body being orbited. It is slightly more complicated, but that's pretty basic.....and the physics don't change. For any given height of orbit, above the surface (of, let's say, the EARTH for now) and, making it simpler, assuming a "circular" orbit (they are always elliptical, in reality).

There is only ONE velocity that will result in a stable orbit. Slow down, and orbit decays, goes lower, may result ultimately in impact. Go faster, and orbit goes higher....go fast enough, you achieve "escape velocity".

If you don't understand these very, very basics of orbital mechanics, then I fear there is no hope for you. (I strongly guess, however, that you actually DO know this, and are just being intentionally argumentative, and disingenuous to the max).

According to this idiot "Russian scientist" that you dug up from underneath a rug, somewhere....the Saturn V's final velocity (I assume he means the "top of the stack", the third stage and its payload, the Apollo spacecraft) only achieved an orbital velocity of 1.2 km/sec??

en.wikipedia.org...

And, this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you can do the math yourself, looking at the sidebar in the next link...the MASS of the vehicle is known, and the amount of THRUST generated by the engines, so the ACCELERATION can be determined....it's all there, it isn't a secret:

en.wikipedia.org...

Compare, if you wish, to similar data for the Space Shuttles. (I know you won't, though....preferring to spread ignorance, that's your forte')....


A Low Earth Orbit means the body orbiting has a velocity of around EIGHT km/sec. This idiot "Russian scientist's" claims of "1.2 km/sec" are a load of crap. He arrived at this by "analysing the films"??


Oh....but, upon reading again......his claim (incorrect, obviously...since there WAS TELEMETRY SHOWING THE ACTUAL VELOCITY, during the launches) was at one point, he calculated "about half speed"....and he then goes on to make the incredible "leap of logic" that, "therefore" ALL of the velocities should be cut in half?

What a moron this guy is.....I wouldn't trust him to calculate the area to install carpet in my home, if he's this stupid.









edit on 18 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
377
<< 220  221  222    224  225  226 >>

log in

join