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: 243
377
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Lets move on
When they docked the LM with the CM.
Did they open the overhead-hatch first,
or did they first take the rock boxes and other materials they wanted to transfer out?

Because it appears in this diagram that the door would block access to the boxes when opened:


Gee, that's a tough one. What would you do? It's okay to think things through for yourself, you know. You might want to go back and re-read this:


Let us look at an analogous argument. Sir Edmund Hillary claimed to have scaled Mount Everest, but we only have the word of himself and the others in his party that he did so. After pouring through all the memoirs, newspaper articles, etc, it turns out that he never mentions where he bought his woolen socks AHA! Without at least one pair of woolen socks, he would have gotten frostbite, maybe even died. Since there is no evidence that he ever bought woolen socks, he cannot have climbed Mt Everest. QED.




posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Either your distortions and obfuscation techniques are intentional, or you truly lack any spatial reasoning abilities, to view photos and diagrams in two dimensions, and translate those in your mind's eye to three dimensional reality. Which is it? Cognitive disconnect? Or deliberate deceit??


When they docked the LM with the CM.
Did they open the overhead-hatch first,
or did they first take the rock boxes and other materials they wanted to transfer out?


What does it matter? In any case, the B/W diagram drawings show no reason to believe the docking hatch, when opened, would interfere with the removal of the sample containers from their stowed positions.


Because it appears in this diagram that the door would block access to the boxes when opened:


That's the diagram I referred to, above. Later, in that post, you linked to a "flickr" photo of the LM, from outside, showing the EVA HATCH!!!!
Is it true? You cannot tell the difference??

(Maybe this has been your problem all along, as we've shown you each and every time how wrong you are).

Shame. Guess not everyone is mechanically adept, it is a truism...maybe part of that "left brain/right brain" perceptual ability thing....



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

That's the diagram I referred to, above. Later, in that post, you linked to a "flickr" photo of the LM, from outside, showing the EVA HATCH!!!!
Is it true? You cannot tell the difference??

(Maybe this has been your problem all along, as we've shown you each and every time how wrong you are).

Shame. Guess not everyone is mechanically adept, it is a truism...maybe part of that "left brain/right brain" perceptual ability thing....



Yep, you are correct. The poster who is lecturing us on the discrepancies of the Apollo missions doesn't know the difference between the EVA Hatch and the docking hatch. He actually thought the CM attached to the side of the LM!

(I'm not responding the the little moron because I'm waiting for him to retract his allegation of me being a serial liar.)



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by weedwhacker

That's the diagram I referred to, above. Later, in that post, you linked to a "flickr" photo of the LM, from outside, showing the EVA HATCH!!!!
Is it true? You cannot tell the difference??

(Maybe this has been your problem all along, as we've shown you each and every time how wrong you are).

Shame. Guess not everyone is mechanically adept, it is a truism...maybe part of that "left brain/right brain" perceptual ability thing....



Yep, you are correct. The poster who is lecturing us on the discrepancies of the Apollo missions doesn't know the difference between the EVA Hatch and the docking hatch. He actually thought the CM attached to the side of the LM!

(I'm not responding the the little moron because I'm waiting for him to retract his allegation of me being a serial liar.)



Ummm... duh. Look inside. LOL




posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Pervius
Tom, that's a very bad picture that doesn't show anything.

We have satellites over Earth that can read the date on a dime but yet Japan, India, and NASA all have had satellites flying around the moon and not one of them has a photo of anything we supposedly left up there.



That isn't the point. Foos has now said the ISRO doesn't trust NASA, so by extension we can believe the Indians.


Oh Tom, lying smacks of desperation.
And you have been lying for quite some time now.

I said "maybe" ISRO doesn't trust NASA.

And it could be a reason why Obama is making that
200 million dollar a day visit to India this week.

We'll see what comes out of that.





Why don't you just admit you were wrong and move on?

Otherwise submit proof. We're still waiting...



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(Maybe this has been your problem all along, as we've shown you each and every time how wrong you are).



You can tell he's been caught in another whopper of a mistake because he's dragged out the dancing lols, and a crapload of them too.

The bigger his "oooops!", the more "lols".



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 





You can tell he's been caught in another whopper of a mistake because he's dragged out the dancing lols, and a crapload of them too. The bigger his "oooops!", the more "lols".


Classic! And no less than a 9 on the lol scale too.

FoosM - Are you pathologically incapable of admitting when you're wrong? Don't delude yourself into thinking it bolsters your credibility in anyway, 'cause it doesn't.

You know, start small and concede on one of the many obvious mistakes you've made, and the atmosphere will improve and you may gain a small amount of respect.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thanks for the reply DJ.

That all seems to make a whole lot of sense.

The difference between methodologies for scientific or historical research is a point I haven't come across before in the hoax debate, be it from Apollo believers or deniers.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown

Originally posted by CHRLZ
KtK, may i say it's a pleasure to see a considered, polite post! I'm not DJW, and he'll no doubt have his own take, but if I may...

Thanks Dude!


Double thanks back! If ONLY we had more like you on the forums! To me, it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you think it all through, and listen to other viewpoints - clearly you do that. There are a few folk here who could learn from you - do you run classes?




Eg, did World War II happen? Well, it's not very likely to be repeated. How about the Concorde? So is repeatability a useful tool for historic events or breakthroughs that were driven by the historical conditions?

Yes but WWII was witnessed and experienced directly by over 100 million people from many different countries and organisations.

(Puts on Devil's Advocate hat.) Yeah, so you say, but how do you truly know that?
Those games can be played endlessly, so you have to do some logical eliminations - the point I am trying to make is that repeatability is not an applicable test in that scenario - as DJW has also eloquently pointed out. It's just one of many tests/tools.



Given that independent organisations across the globe were using those reflectors immediately after they were deployed, then they must have been deployed at the time of Apollo...

Yes but this does not emlinate the possibility that the reflector could have been placed there previously

Actually, I suspect it does. There were a lot of folk experimenting with laser refelection techniques, and I'd guess someone would have noticed it there earlier. However, of course it could have been placed there and then only remotely calibrated and angled when they were ready... But then you need to ask - ok, on what rocket did it go? Who did the development? - another group of folk that have to be kept quiet? To design, develop, create, launch, soft land, set up, and implement such a device is a very large undertaking. Much larger than just taking one on a mission where there was an available payload.. So you need to look at which is more likely, and also ask yourself a simple question - why not just NOT take a reflector and eliminate all the effort...?


I mean, just think about it.. If you were going to hoax it, wouldn't your first thought be 'Gee, this will be hard, and lots of people will be watching. Let's keep it really simple..'. Then you simply make your craft in such a way that it doesn't have much payload capability, only take a few things up, and bring a few little rocks back. And you most certainly do NOT then run another 5 similar missions..


Yes, I said in a previous post, that I thought this was a very bold claim to make and would probably be easily dealt with.

(that was about the lunar samples) This is a huge elephant in the room for the Apollo deniers. We simply cannot possibly create fake moon rocks here on earth - that page posted earlier goes into great detail to explain why that is. And from just having a few grams before Apollo, we went to having hundreds of kilograms of moon stuff... Again, done remotely? If so you have to ask all the same questions above AGAIN, but also multiply the magnitude of the problems by that huge weight of samples. Apollo was designed for that payload, so it was 'easy' (well, relatively!). Again, you need to ask, why *would* they want to bring so much home if it was a hoax? A few kilo's would have been plenty for most of us ordinary folk.. But no, they went all crazy and brought hundreds of kilos home. Why? Partly, because they COULD...
Apollo 11 proved the capability of the craft and the 'headroom' they had, and of course they improved the payload capacity with each mission...



Where do we find the independently verified, conclusive evidence that has not originated from NASA?
1. Well over 400,000 people, many of whom were NOT directly employed by NASA, and all of the organisations and countries that employed them, the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek operators in Australia. I've personally met at least a dozen of those people.
2. Many hundreds of enthusiasts who observed multiple aspects of the missions using telescopes and radio equipment.
3. Every geologist who has examined those lunar samples (and the huge amount of samples brought back)
4. Jaxa Selene Kaguya
5. Chandrayaan
6. Every space agency
7. Every government
8. Every recognised science institution
9. Thousands of science and engineering journals who have reported in great length on every aspect of the missions
10. Every recognised scientist and engineer (ie MILLIONS of them) except a few (and those few are easy to prove as liars and charlatans, who not only post lies, but also lie about their background)

Yes but all the source data and physical evidence for Apollo still originated from NASA.

Well, no. A huge amount of this was done by contractors like Grumman, McDonnell Douglas. And 99.999% of that documentation is fully public - that is UNPRECEDENTED - and also inexplicable if they were hoaxing it! I mean seriously, everything is out there available to be examined. There has never been a more documented historical event, and probably never will be - and that openness was a conscious choice by NASA after the Apollo 1 tragedy. Sadly we'll probably never see that level of accountability again..

But the question is, given that NASA ran the show, how on earth can they not be the major source of documentation? It's a non-argument, I'm afraid. By all means if you can find faults in the documents, or missing documents for some key area, have at it! Just point me/us to it!

Everything being repeated ad infinitum by the deniers simply demonstrates that they haven't a collective clue about what they are looking at - the example above about the hatch gives you just one of HUNDREDS of examples in this thread.

They went to the Moon, via space... So of course there will be some strange stuff to find in photos and documents! But some folks think 'strange' means faked, when really it just means that they don't understand, and haven't done their homework. Or in the case of a couple folks here, it simply means they are promoting this by deliberately misleading others.

Anyway, once again - thanks for setting a high standard with the attitude, KtK! Keep questioning, and I hope you find your answers!

If you don't, just ask again..

edit on 8-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: the world war 1flying ace, ever vigilant, fixed a spelin erur...



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Tomblvd
 





You can tell he's been caught in another whopper of a mistake because he's dragged out the dancing lols, and a crapload of them too. The bigger his "oooops!", the more "lols".


Classic! And no less than a 9 on the lol scale too.

FoosM - Are you pathologically incapable of admitting when you're wrong? Don't delude yourself into thinking it bolsters your credibility in anyway, 'cause it doesn't.

You know, start small and concede on one of the many obvious mistakes you've made, and the atmosphere will improve and you may gain a small amount of respect.



Are you guys all blind?
Dont tell me you dont see that the hatch is open inside the LM?
That the door is basically resting on the ascent engine cover.
Now if you want to argue that what we see inside is not the door of the hatch
then explain what it is.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
he did many many times now.. how many more times does some one have to go over this with you? you don't know the math, science or engineering to even begin to understand any thing that had to do with Apollo but like a little child that cannot admit when they are wrong you bang your head jump up and down down right lie. dodge and snake away from any questions. Yes by demanding answers to your own questions which are answered again and again.. its no ones fault foosm that you can't understand any thing.. they try very very hard to walk you thru it again and again.. its sad really.. you must not have graduated sixth grade.. maybe I'm wrong but at least if your going to be an asshat than answer questions directed at you for a change instead of dodging or ignoring them.. might be a nice change of pace for you.. peace man



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

(Puts on Devil's Advocate hat.) Yeah, so you say, but how do you truly know that?
Those games can be played endlessly, so you have to do some logical eliminations - the point I am trying to make is that repeatability is not an applicable test in that scenario - as DJW has also eloquently pointed out. It's just one of many tests/tools.


Sorry, but this is comparing apples to diamonds.
Wars are not impossibility, evidence of that is that we have wars NOW! Do we land men on the moon now?
No! Nobody does!

Claiming to landing men on the moon and returning them safely was a theory all the way up to 1968/9 depending on how you look at it. The claim thereafter that this was done, but not repeated since, begs the question if the original claim was true.

Nobody denies that NASA had a program called Apollo to ATTEMPT to land men on the moon, we deny they were able to SUCCEED doing it. And that their evidence for their claim is questionable.

It's like nobody denies there was a World War 2, but certain aspects of it could have been lies. For example, the original reason given for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Or, certain soldiers claims of heroism could have been made up. Or, fanciful top secret weapons of the NAZI's.






Given that independent organisations across the globe were using those reflectors immediately after they were deployed, then they must have been deployed at the time of Apollo...

Yes but this does not emlinate the possibility that the reflector could have been placed there previously

Actually, I suspect it does. There were a lot of folk experimenting with laser refelection techniques, and I'd guess someone would have noticed it there earlier. However, of course it could have been placed there and then only remotely calibrated and angled when they were ready... But then you need to ask - ok, on what rocket did it go? Who did the development? - another group of folk that have to be kept quiet? To design, develop, create, launch, soft land, set up, and implement such a device is a very large undertaking. Much larger than just taking one on a mission where there was an available payload.. So you need to look at which is more likely, and also ask yourself a simple question - why not just NOT take a reflector and eliminate all the effort...?



Which folks were beaming lasers to the moon?
And at what locations on the moon?
Your acting like this was normal practice by many people.
Tell me, which organizations have found the Russian reflectors?

What mission could have sent reflectors? Its called Surveyor for one.

Who sent it? The same people who claimed to have landed men on the moon.





Yes, I said in a previous post, that I thought this was a very bold claim to make and would probably be easily dealt with.

(that was about the lunar samples) This is a huge elephant in the room for the Apollo deniers. We simply cannot possibly create fake moon rocks here on earth - that page posted earlier goes into great detail to explain why that is. And from just having a few grams before Apollo, we went to having hundreds of kilograms of moon stuff... Again, done remotely? If so you have to ask all the same questions above AGAIN, but also multiply the magnitude of the problems by that huge weight of samples. Apollo was designed for that payload, so it was 'easy' (well, relatively!). Again, you need to ask, why *would* they want to bring so much home if it was a hoax? A few kilo's would have been plenty for most of us ordinary folk.. But no, they went all crazy and brought hundreds of kilos home. Why? Partly, because they COULD...
Apollo 11 proved the capability of the craft and the 'headroom' they had, and of course they improved the payload capacity with each mission...



The big elephant in the room is that no independent body has access to ALL claimed samples returned.
The majority of the samples are locked away!



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
he did many many times now.. how many more times does some one have to go over this with you? you don't know the math, science or engineering to even begin to understand any thing that had to do with Apollo but like a little child that cannot admit when they are wrong you bang your head jump up and down down right lie. dodge and snake away from any questions. Yes by demanding answers to your own questions which are answered again and again.. its no ones fault foosm that you can't understand any thing.. they try very very hard to walk you thru it again and again.. its sad really.. you must not have graduated sixth grade.. maybe I'm wrong but at least if your going to be an asshat than answer questions directed at you for a change instead of dodging or ignoring them.. might be a nice change of pace for you.. peace man


What are you talking about? What conversation are you jumping into?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, I'm sorry. You should have been more specific, about the "flickr" photo, and what you were pointing out.


Are you guys all blind?
Dont tell me you dont see that the hatch is open inside the LM?


So...you do understand the two hatches. Good! BUT, you also have the line drawings, showing the interior arrangement, yes? Your "argument" is still moot....:


That the door is basically resting on the ascent engine cover.


So what?? (Is that the picture of the LM at the NASM in Washington, D.C.? Likely, though don't remember the EVA hatch being open, when I was there...).

Anyway, so what? (I repeat). The hatch isn't all that large, in diameter. AND, that photo? Tells us....where is the LM when the picture was taken? Yup, on Earth, in one g.

Do you understand how the hatch would just remain in whatever position it is placed, when in zero g???


AND, moving the sample containers would be a snap, even easier, in zero gravity!

Sheesh....why not rent the HBO twelve-part series "From The Earth to the Moon" to see the very accurate re-creations of some flights, and many of the exact things you're going on and on and on and on .....about.

Oh, and remember....yes, in that production the spacecraft flight scenes, and Lunar EVA scenes WERE shot in a studio, using the latest (late 20th century) filming techniques and equipment and technology. SO, not every bit will be exactly perfect, not like the actual Apollo footage...but they got it darned close.

Tom Hanks (one of the producers) is a big space buff, he's my age, and he's particular about utmost accuracy, hence the excellent production values in that series.


edit on 8 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Sorry, but this is comparing apples to diamonds.
Wars are not impossibility, evidence of that is that we have wars NOW! Do we land men on the moon now?
No! Nobody does!


Circular argument. Landing men on the Moon has never been an impossibility, simply difficult. Was the Hindenburg disaster a hoax? Can you cross the Atlantic by Zeppelin now? No! Nobody does!

We have dealt with this fallacy many times before on this thread. Please pay more attention. Incidentally, you are correct about the docking hatch, It would make it difficult to remove the LSRC's when open. How would you solve that problem in real life? If it's that easy to solve, it doesn't render the mission impossible.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
We don't have a supersonic passenger airliner either now you muppet and if you want to see one you have to got to a museum, does that mean it never existed? Wakey wakey
:shk:



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
We don't have a supersonic passenger airliner either now you muppet and if you want to see one you have to got to a museum, does that mean it never existed? Wakey wakey
:shk:


Ahhh calling me, I assume, a muppet, should I take that as a compliment or an insult?
What say you forum moderator?

Now regarding your example.
Again, apples and oranges.
Are you suggesting that supersonic flight is not possible?
Cannot and has not been duplicated by other countries?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ahhh calling me, I assume, a muppet, should I take that as a compliment or an insult?
What say you forum moderator?


What a predictable response. You're like the brat that runs around irritating the grown ups, giggling, urinating, hurling insults and abuse. Then when they've had enough and someone gives you a slap instead of manning up and taking it you go running off crying to Mummy.
"Bein 'orrible" you sob as you cling onto Mummy's petticoat tails biting your fist while eying everyone evilly.
No honor or respect whatsoever, sickening.



Now regarding your example.
Again, apples and oranges.
Are you suggesting that supersonic flight is not possible?
Cannot and has not been duplicated by other countries?


No but I can imagine you doing so. And only the UK and France built a supersonic passenger airliner, no other country duplicated it and certainly not successfully. Must be fake huh? I've never flown on one, I've only been on one in a museum, so it's not obviously not real. Of course I don't actually believe it isn't real, do you want to know why? Because I'm not dumb idiot, that's why.

I can imagine in 15 years time if we still haven't got a supersonic commercial airliner some insolent brat will come on forums asking for the proof they existed and mouth off that we can't possible believe all those decades ago we had Concorde when they can't make it now.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Speaking of rude behavior, JW's new video on the subject-




Although Wikipedia is known to be pro-NASA in general, it usually just echos the erroneous counter-claims of propagandists and leaves it at that. Occasionally, however, some troll will vandalize Wikipedia by using it express their emotionally dysfunctional hatred against their opponents.

Recently, a certain propagandist has used such Wikipedia vandalism in an attempt to libel Ralph Rene and yours truly.




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.

"Jarrah White" (noise] referring to others as "trolls". This one does deserve one



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 240  241  242    244  245  246 >>

log in

join