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: 224
377
<< 221  222  223    225  226  227 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I do not mind anyone asking me to show the numbers, because the only numbers provided are from NASA.
And to that I say, by asking me to use NASA's numbers you have asked me to use the very same numbers from an agency in which I am calling out as being the lead part of this scam.

This is known as the logical fallacy of appeal to authority

And since I am currently in school, I can use the correct syntax and grammar in order to communicate. I have neither said one cross word to you DJW001, nor have I asked you to calm down the personal attacks, because you have done nothing other than ask me questions (others might interpret your words as hostile towards them but I have not seen it toward me), which is totally and completely legitimate as far as the T & C's are concerned here at ATS regarding any exchanges between you and I.

I respect your questions and I see them as being valid to ask.
I only hope that you can also see the validity in me calling into question the authority to which you have referred.
Thus my allusion to the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

If anyone has attacked me personally, then it will be obvious to the staff, because I have asked very politely for it to stop several times and I have highlighted a very few portions to try and show certain individuals that they are engaging in blatant name calling, argument ad hominem, and they are also breaking the Terms and Conditions that they voluntarily chose to adhere when joining ATS.

I rather enjoy a good debate, but I will not devolve into name calling. It is firstly a sign of an individual with poor debate skills, and it is also a sign of desperation. (see Cicero quote)
I have read many of your replies, and while some may border on hostility, they all seem to be rather legit questions.

I am constantly shocked at the lack of respect shown to other posters on this and many other threads simply because of disagreements, and the lack of enforcement of the T & C's by the mods is also bothersome to me, because unless that is the word "JEW" is included in someone's rant very little is usually done.

This is supposed to be a board that is solely about research and debate.
Debates can become heated, but I see the last four pages filled with personal attacks against ME.
Not against my points, but against ME, and the reason for this is due to disagreement.

I like to come to ATS for the debate. I like to learn and I have no problem admitting my mistakes, but when confronted with now 6 people who disagree with me it becomes rather difficult to reply to the barrage of some questions such as yours that are legitimate, but mostly insults from others that are completely unnecessary.

I thank you for the kind words.

Cheers

edit on 10/18/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Just pointing out Jose that you kind of jumped into a hostile thread. I made some of my first postings here and was instantly having my intelligence attacked by various people as well as being implied that I'm a disinfo agent or whatever. This thread was a mess long before you got here and there ain't much moral high ground on this hill if you know what I mean. It's just not a happy thread.

As for the numbers ... Surely if NASA are faking them it should be easy to prove them wrong using the dimensions of their craft and the claimed numbers and such? Or test some PEM fuel cells for the electricity or whatever?

I just don't see the problem of them not having mounds of information around. Very few people would be interested in it, and if there was a 100% accurate simulation of the moon I doubt it would change your mind. If I wanted to know the fuel consumption of a jaguar ... I'd ask jaguar ... I don't see how the numbers could possibly add up and it be a conspiracy at the same time.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Awesome thread, thx for the links. That was HILARIOUS watching Buzz try to explain the petrified wood,"uuu bu a" classic, then he has a temper tantrum, 'Gold Jerry, Gold'



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I respect your stance and you ask a valid question.
And to that I reply the same as I did to DWJ001.

NASA is the only entity with the supposed "true" numbers regarding deep space travel.

No matter how we break this down, at some point we will have no choice but to use the numbers provided to us by NASA.
These calculations that everyone seems to want to know can only be found through the numbers provided by NASA concerning the Saturn rocket.

The problem with all of this is that none of the parts for the rocket are able to be produced, so the only information that we have to go by are the blueprints that were supposedly lost for a bit of time.
that point can be debated as to its validity.

As I have said, in a true research project all things must be verifiable.
Information that is solely on paper is treated as being by theory only.
Unless the actual hardware is able to be replicated and tested and then retested, then we only have NASA's word as to its capabilities and performance.

That does not lead to validity when using the scientific method.

This is why I keep referring to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

We have blueprints.
We have footage of the takeoff and the landing.
We have footage of the supposed moon landing and walk.
Footage that was misplaced for some 30 plus years.

The last statement would invalidate anything in a court of law because of the chain of command.

If this information was lost then Heaven knows what could have happened to it.

Too many discrepancies lead me to believe that the official storyline is not true.
I am not saying that we did not go to the moon, but what I am saying is that the story as presented by the government is not congruent. It is rife with logical fallacies.
And my conclusion is that we did not go to the moon in the manner as was told by NASA.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Pinke
 




NASA is the only entity with the supposed "true" numbers regarding deep space travel.

No matter how we break this down, at some point we will have no choice but to use the numbers provided to us by NASA.
These calculations that everyone seems to want to know can only be found through the numbers provided by NASA concerning the Saturn rocket.


Exactly what "numbers" are you talking about?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


The numbers that everyone continues to ask me to provide in order to calculate the amount of fuel necessary to get people from here to the moon and back using the Saturn V rocket.

Please see previous post.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


The numbers that everyone continues to ask me to provide in order to calculate the amount of fuel necessary to get people from here to the moon and back using the Saturn V rocket.



You are arguing in circles. I want to know the specific information that would be necessary to make your calculations.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



The numbers that everyone continues to ask me to provide in order to calculate the amount of fuel necessary to get people from here to the moon and back using the Saturn V rocket.

Please see previous post.
I am curious to this know this:

How much energy [in joules] does a kilogram of RP-1 Fuel have? Since we are talking about the Saturn V.

Then why is the figure important?

This shouldn't take any experience graduate student researcher more than a few minutes to answer.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Just a friendly reminder...



...that courtesy is mandatory.

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from delving into unrelated issues.

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


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.

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.


So you want to shoot the messenger, Is that the tactic?
They happened to lean towards a particular way of thinking that you disagree with and that means their information is incorrect? Biased, perhaps, but is it incorrect?

And if a particular paper or book is not translated to English I suppose then it doesn't exist?
If you can't find it sold on Amazon or whatever book outlet then its invalid?



The real story rocket Saturn 5 "can be divided into three periods. First, the Saturn-5 passes through a period of difficulties, which ends April 4, 1968 fiasco unmanned test rockets. Then, without further unmanned tests on the rocket ship set, and from December 1968 to May 1973, she participated in 11 successful missions, carrying on its top spaceships (10 "Apollo and Skylab). This period is called the least "happy." After that comes the "museum" a period when the most remarkable in the history of human progress rocket disappears forever from practical use, and the remaining "alive" three "Saturn 5" go live on the lawns of U.S. space museums. This period lasts until now.


from Man on the Moon? "What is the evidence?"

Alexander Popov

link

link2

link3

Have fun DJ, hope you have better luck than the lunar sample problem.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
How terribly sad it is that you actually post something like this and think your intelligent for doing so.


Why is it sad, and why do YOU think, I think it's intelligent ?

This thread is about discussing JW's videos which I'm doing.

In this one ...


starts at 9.10

It is suggested that the astronauts were not in low earth orbit. Instead they probably spent their time on earth, getting some sun, then were airlifted, inside the capsule, and dropped above the splashdown site.
In the video a pilot claims he saw it happen.

This photo was taken during the recovery dinner of the Apollo 17 crew. They had spent nearly 2 weeks in space.
Their arms had purportedly not seen sunlight for 2 weeks. They don't look like arms that haven't seen sunlight for 2 weeks.



Sometimes you need to look at the most simple things staring us all in the face.
edit on 18-10-2010 by ppk55 because: formatting



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Again ppk55 you are questioning SKIN TONES of the astronauts to justify your stance of a Apollo Moon Hoax which is PATHETIC!

I mean seriously flawed, and downright illogical.

There is absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT to those claims, NONE!

Your assertion that this is a valid argument show how flawed your logic is to PROOF and FALLACY.

If you actually believe that your argument has premise I think we should be discussing what the concept of delusions actually are.

Tan lines of the astronauts is personal opinion, you have no DATA to support you claims it is purely wild illogical speculation and shows the continual far reaching lies and fallacies that the HB's continually bring to the table

ABSOLUTE NON-SENSE!

Deny Ignorance don't continue to perpetrate it!


EDIT:BTW posting the exact same post over again could and should be seen as spamming this LONG AND OVERT THREAD.

I suggest you refrain from doing so in the future.



edit on 18-10-2010 by theability because: to add above

edit on 18-10-2010 by theability because: mistype



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Fading a tan is aided by exfoliation and regular washing ... something that I would assume isn't happening perfectly inside a space shuttle. Furthermore the 2 week rule is a pretty casual rule. It doesn't apply to everyone and, based on the photo you've provided, the group of men I see are hardly that dark. Plus, they could have easily burnt up quite a tan in the last twenty-four hours and such like - it is after all only their arms etc ...

I worked nightshift for a number of years, and whilst my body did become paler my face and limbs kept a fairly dark complexion.

Would also add that having the men hang out on an island for a couple of weeks suddenly adds a whole lot more complexity to the original theory.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I see this Monty Python thread is still going strong.

Now it has been reduced to arguments about astronauts having sun tans.

The sad part is that as the chief engineers and astronauts pass away from the inevitable onset of old age, these crazy theories will actually gain more supporters.

By the way, has anyone come up with a conspiracy theory as to how a lunat satellite has now taken actual images of astronaut footprints on the Moon's surface, I'm guessing we're just calling it Nasa Photoshop editing, riiiight?

You guys make me



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Utter nonsense. More "Jarrah White" idiocy...because that's all he has --- based off the insane ramblings begun by Bill Kaysing. Continued by the (arguably) even more insane Ralph Rene'....


It is suggested that the astronauts were not in low earth orbit.


One look at ANY of the Apollo CMs, and that turd suggestion is immediately discredited.
Have YOU ever been to a museum??? If not, may I suggest you do?


Instead .... then were airlifted, inside the capsule, and dropped above the splashdown site.
In the video a pilot claims he saw it happen.


Bull!

Does "Jarrah White's" video say it was APOLLO 15 that was "seen by a pilot"?? Or, since you used a photo of Apollo 17, was it that mission??

IF "Jarrah's" 'story' was about Apollo 15, WHY did you confuse the issue, with a photo from Apollo 17???

Let's watch a RESPONSE to that moron "Jarrah White", and his "claim" (well, really it is BILL KAYSING'S claim...UNVERIFIED, when he tells the anecdote on a radio show interview. "Jarrah" is too stupid, or just too desperate, to realize how idiotic it is!!!)




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



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Joesephus - You continue to make assertion after assertion, but provide ZERO in the way of actual data supporting your assertions. One might think that you have ZERO math skills and that is the cause of your reticence to share your academic acumen with the rest of us.

Can you support any of your assertions with data? What specific experiments have you personally done to support your many and varied assertions?

▼ If I posted here that the moon is made of cheese, would you believe me?
▼ If I told you that I know this because I am a cheese maker, would this convince you?
▼ If I told you that the Milk conglomerate was withholding the data from the public and that all of their calculations were a fraud, would that be sufficient to convince you?

What in the name of all that is Swiss, is keeping you from describing your conclusions in the scientific manner, befitting an academic?

FooSM - Yes Tan lines are the proof. I mean they must be, right? Because that is your last gasp in this herculean struggle with reality, isn't it?
Do you see why serious minded people might get upset when you place burning bags of poo like that in front of them? It really is insulting.
Will you ever admit when you are wrong? Ever?

Please do us all a favor and debunk your last assertion for us. Go and list 3 reasons why what you said may NOT be true.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
In this one ...


starts at 9.10

It is suggested that the astronauts were not in low earth orbit. Instead they probably spent their time on earth, getting some sun, then were airlifted, inside the capsule, and dropped above the splashdown site.
In the video a pilot claims he saw it happen.

This photo was taken during the recovery dinner of the Apollo 17 crew. They had spent nearly 2 weeks in space.
Their arms had purportedly not seen sunlight for 2 weeks. They don't look like arms that haven't seen sunlight for 2 weeks.



Sometimes you need to look at the most simple things staring us all in the face.
edit on 18-10-2010 by ppk55 because: formatting



One of the areas where skeptics believe that the astronauts were actually grounded is due to the

Much too precise Apollo landings on Earth - the probability of airdrops




The landing on Earth with a landing capsule on a parachute begins with the re-entry into the lower, dense atmosphere and from this point can hardly be steered. The landings in the "American" atmosphere were all performed in the sea, so it was a "splashdown".

Factors for a landing of the landing capsule with a parachute are:

-- the point of re-entry with about 8 km per second [~28,800 km per hour]

-- little mistakes have big aberrations for consequence

-- the landing capsule is not steerable.



Now think about that for a second.
The Capsule was not steerable.
Coming in from space like a meteorite.


At this time during the "moon landings" [which were performed in the simulation centers] there is no GPS (Wisnewski, p.236), there is no instrumental landing system, and visual landing is not possible either. Factors for the parachute are air temperature, air density and the wind. The parachutes of the space capsule are opened e.b. for Apollo 11 in a height of 7.5 km (23,000 feet). The wind can do with the capsule what he wants


Miss Distance Average in kilometers for manned missions:

Mercury: 84.06
Gemini: 50.57
Apollo: 4.5

4.5 ? What the hell?
What the hell did NASA do different for Apollo than for Gemini or Mercury?
I mean, come on, thats just a slap in the face. More magical numbers for Apollo NASA?
Like your 800 pound gorilla worth of samples?

Strange enough, for unmanned missions the distance already is larger.
Apollo: 134 kilometers

Now you and I know that NASA air dropped those capsules into the ocean.
4.5 are numbers for air drops not re-entry from space.
.


Fresh looking "moon astronauts" - or unknown people behind the helmets?

After the "landings" the astronauts of the Apollo "moon flights" do not look as they were stressed. Stress factors of a "moon landing" were:
-- zero gravity for 10 or 12 days
-- reduction of muscles
-- to be penned in narrow seats
-- space illnesses
-- bad food
-- special pressure circumstances
-- high exposure to radiation
-- strains for the body
-- disorientation during the re-entry into the atmosphere
-- rocking sea

But behind a helmet it's not possible to see which person comes out of the landing capsule. The astronauts do not put their helmets off. By this it's not possible to recognize the "moon astronauts" and there is no proof which astronaut was in the capsule. Officially the "moon astronauts" were lead to an examination shortly after the landing and nobody had seen the faces of the people coming out from the landing capsules. After that the "moon astronauts" are shown in quarantine suits




So, an Apollo flight consisted of an empty rocket, well prepared, blurred and manipulated films from the simulation centers, and by an airdrop with a hero ceremony at the end with the "President" (Nixon).



en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft_landing)
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 221  222  223    225  226  227 >>

log in

join