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: 244
377
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Speaking of rude behavior



You mean like calling someone a serial liar without proof?

Come on Foos, we're waiting.....




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?




The example doesn't matter Foos ... End of the day it's not different from any number of theories about the pyramids or the easter island statues.

So people can't tell how they were made ... It must be a conspiracy? No, it's just people can't fill in the blanks or research something outside of their understanding so they make stuff up. UFOs ... exact same thing ... I don't know what it is therefore it must be aliens!

There's a lot of things that humans have only done once. There's a lot of things humans don't understand about these events.

I remember a story from one of the physics professors at a university who told me about scientists who used to keep radioactive material on their desk as ornaments. Predictably these people died. Our computers are better ... our knowledge is more ... why would we send people to the moon now?

The only reason (IMO) will be for an ongoing moon base which is decades away.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith


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.


Actually, the russians had the TU-144
en.wikipedia.org...
Though one could certainly argue about the "successfully"-part (It wasn't very much).



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by FoosM

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?




The example doesn't matter Foos ... End of the day it's not different from any number of theories about the pyramids or the easter island statues.

So people can't tell how they were made ... It must be a conspiracy? No, it's just people can't fill in the blanks or research something outside of their understanding so they make stuff up. UFOs ... exact same thing ... I don't know what it is therefore it must be aliens!


Sorry, I dont equate all those theories or historical mysteries the same.

We have pyramids, they can be visited today, by anone. They also exist in various countries.
There are currently no men on the moon.
So we cant verify if anyone ever went.

Its like 12 people claiming the saw bigfoot, were abducted by UFO, got gifts from Santa Clause, or rode unicorns to into the center of the Earth to escape a dragon.

Just like Apollo, UFOs, Bigfoot, Jesus Christ, Santa Claus, are all taken seriously and backed up by books, eyewitness accounts, documentaries, films, artifacts, etc. doesn't make them any more real than pyramids or Easter Island. And at this point, thats what Apollo amounts too: Claims by one organization that is/was heavily linked to the US defense department. The US, a country known for propaganda, lies and black ops.

To top it off, we have this issue:

With the exception of the lunar flights of the Apollo program, all human spaceflights have been either in LEO or have been sub-orbital.


Now how does that make any sense?
When are we going to see astronauts fly higher than LEO?
At least MEO? The highest flight in LEO has been Gemini 11.

I love this image, It puts things into perspective.:



Imagine a super tiny dot traveling from Earth all the way to that moon.
The more you look at it, the more you can understand why there is a growing number of people asking themselves... how the hell did that manage that 40 years ago? Really... how?
And now, we dont go pass the blue zone? LEO?

So try as you might to compare Apollo to the reality of WW2, Supersonic flight, Deep Sea submarines, it doesn't fly. Apollo was a race. And it looks like somebody cheated.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its like 12 people claiming the saw bigfoot, were abducted by UFO, got gifts from Santa Clause, or rode unicorns to into the center of the Earth to escape a dragon.


So what you're saying is, you don't see any difference between this:

And this:

You are also forgetting that every time someone produces "evidence" for Bigfoot, etc, it never passes the smell test. The more scientists examine the lunar material brought back by Apollo, the more they actually learn. The fact that the samples continue to yield new and important data years after the end of the active missions, yet Moon Hoaxers keep repeating the exact same claims year after year without producing any new "evidence" speaks volumes.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The attack against Jarrah White continues.

Today I have an important announcement to my friends and subscribers.

Last night, a certain Youtube user threatened to file copyright infringement against three of my videos. He says it's because I display screen-shots of his website in my most recent upload. And snippets of his videos and voice in two other uploads.

Legally, the user in question has no claim. Because the Fair Use expection of US copyright law and Youtube terms-of-service allows me to show samlpes of other authors' works to critique them.

The user in question is in no position to accuse me of copyright violations. Because in all three examples, he displayed MY pictures and videos alongside his own content, and which were used mostly for the purpose of insulting myself and Ralph Rene. Youtube's guidelines prohibit the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of ridicule, harassment and personal attacks.

Nonetheless, if the worst case scenario happens, I would like to invite all my friends and subscribers to subscribe to the following account.

www.youtube.com...



Its quite telling how far persons will go to denigrate and attack people who challenge the moon landings.
Maybe some people just cant handle the truth.



edit on 9-11-2010 by FoosM because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The attack against Jarrah White continues.



Its quite telling how far persons will go to denigrate and attack people who challenge the moon landings.
Maybe the some people just cant handle the truth.




Are you talking about proven liar (unlike me, only an "alleged" liar) Jarrah White?

Pot, meet kettle.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Space, the final Frontier

One thing that is lacking in the Apollo photographic record is crew preparations, working and resting while in the LM. So its very difficult to determine how Apollo astronauts managed to rest or work in the LM.

Lets take a look at how much space these people had.

Here are some small models of the LM that can offer a good indication on how little space there really was:
spacemodels.nuxit.net...
spacemodels.nuxit.net...
spacemodels.nuxit.net...

So when you see the real thing, you get a good idea about the space:






Space to Sleep

On Apollo 11, Armstrong and Aldrin did not have hammocks and tried to make themselves comfortable on the floor (Aldrin) and the ascent engine cover (Armstrong) for a four-hour rest. Neither was able to sleep because of (1) the suits were uncomfortable, (2) the cabin was cold, (3) there was noise from a glycol pump in the Environmental Control System, and (4) sunlight was leaking into the cabin around the window shades and through the Alignment Optical Telescope.

The Commander was resting on the ascent engine cover and was bothered by the light entering through the telescope (Alignment Optical Telescope, AOT). The Lunar Module Pilot estimated he slept fitfully for perhaps 2 hours and the Commander did not sleep at all, even though body positioning was not a problem. Because of the reduced gravity, the positions on the floor and on the engine cover were both quite comfortable."



On Apollo 12, Conrad and Bean had hammocks but obtained only about 3 hours fitful sleep. Conrad was experiencing signficant shoulder pain due to improper suit fit and had to wake up Bean to let out the laces on Conrad's lower legs.



On Apollo 14, Shepard and Mitchell got very little sleep because of suit discomfort and because of a sensation that the LM was about to tip over. Inadequeate sleep obtained on the trip out to the Moon may have been a contributing factor.



The last three mission each included a lunar-surface stay of roughly 72 hours and three rest periods. From the experiences of the prior crews, it was clear that they would be unable to complete the ambitous schedule of lunar surface activities they had planned unless they got adequate rest. Doffing the suits for the rest periods was going to be essential and, generally, all three crews slept well.

Some of the astronauts took Seconal (Eli Lilly branded Secobarbital, a barbituate) sleeping tablets on occasion during their missions.


Not really discussing the cramp space. Lets take a look at their sleeping quarters:

Here is picture of ONE man lying down on the LM floor
He cant even stretch his legs and he is not wearing a bulky dust covered space suit.


Now we assume that these Astros where not wearing their PLSSs.
Where would they go?
Here is where one of the PLSSs normally goes.


During the trip out from Earth and during the landing, the LMP's PLSS was attached to the floor immediately aft of the forward hatch.



In effect, the aft portion of the cabin was only useful as a place for temporarily stowing such things as the suits and helmets and, at night, as a place to hang the Commander's hammock. Readers should also note that, contrary to what is shown in the accompanying drawings, the crews of the extended missions (Apollos 15, 16, and 17) did not wear their suits during the rest periods and, rather, slept in their underwear. The suits were stowed on the ascent engine cover and further reduced the usable space in the cabin.


Take a look how much space the helmets and suits actually take up, basically all the way up to the ceiling:


Where the hell did the hammocks go?
Even in these diagrams, the artists has no choice but show the astronauts with helmets and suits on


On Apollo 11, they kept their helmets on:

Apollo 11

There was never much spare room in the LM cabin and, after the EVA, two rock boxes added to the clutter. After taking photographs out the windows to further document their EVA, Armstrong and Aldrin had a meal and then jettisoned the PLSSs and other gear, primarily in the interest of reducing the LM weight for the return to orbit, but also to give them more elbow room.




Armstrong - "We cleaned up the cockpit and got things pretty well in shape. This took us a while, and we planned to sleep with our helmets and gloves on for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a lot quieter with your helmets and gloves on, and then we wouldn't have any mental concern about the ECS and so on having two loops working for us there."

Aldrin - "We wouldn't be breathing all that dust."

Armstrong - "That was another concern. Our cockpit was so dirty with soot, that we thought the suit loop (filtered oxygen going directly from the ECS to the suit and then back again) would be a lot cleaner."


Breathing dust you say?


Armstrong - "A couple of comments with respect to going to sleep in the LM. One is that it's noisy; and two is that it's illuminated. We had the window shades up (that is, covering the windows) and light came through those window shades like crazy. They're like (photographic) negatives and a lot of light will shine through."

[There is no discussion of the window shades in the Apollo 11 Mission Report. However, the fact that none of the other crews reported problems with light coming in suggests that the shade design was modified to use a more opaque material.]


Of course, Im still trying to figure out how light can come through the windows when the windows are facing the the shadow side of the LM in the first place



Space to work


As you know, on several missions the astronauts weighed their rock boxes in the LM.
Did they take their helmets off? Did they take their PLSS off? If so, where could they measure
the SRCs and the sample bags? And again, where did they store the SRCs?


More to come....


www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.apollosaturn.com...
workingonthemoon.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Yes, there was very little space inside the two spacecraft.

Those of us who understand the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs have realized this, long ago.

Your point?? It isn't "proving" anything, in all those links and photos.

Another failed "atttempt" to "prove" a "hoax"??


The ATS audience is more intelligent than you give them credit for, apparently..... (sigh)

(sigh, again. One would think with all of the research that FoosM is doing, the light bulb would eventually click on, in his/her head. That "Aha!" moment might be just 'round the bend....we shall see....)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry, I dont equate all those theories or historical mysteries the same.

We have pyramids, they can be visited today, by anone. They also exist in various countries.
There are currently no men on the moon.
So we cant verify if anyone ever went.

Its like 12 people claiming the saw bigfoot, were abducted by UFO, got gifts from Santa Clause, or rode unicorns to into the center of the Earth to escape a dragon.

Just like Apollo, UFOs, Bigfoot, Jesus Christ, Santa Claus, are all taken seriously and backed up by books, eyewitness accounts, documentaries, films, artifacts, etc. doesn't make them any more real than pyramids or Easter Island. And at this point, thats what Apollo amounts too: Claims by one organization that is/was heavily linked to the US defense department. The US, a country known for propaganda, lies and black ops.


Those examples are absolutely relevant to Apollo ...

People found the Easter Island statues and declared that no primative race could produce such large statues as they had no cutting tools to do so. The giant statues were labelled by those such as Enrich Von Daniken as evidence of visitation from other planets.

Thor Heyerdahl, the Norwegian explorer, anthropologist and author proved Enrich's hypothesis completely incorrect proving that the statues could be done with blunt tools and water.

When people found the pyramids they instantly declared that no primative race could produce such large structure, as they lacked the knowledge of engineering to do so ... Recently we have unearthed many failed attempts at pyramids and the so called perfect mathematics of the pyramids have been debunked yet the urban legend remains.

Perhaps in a hundred years from now a person will post on a web board about our first visit to mars and state ... When people first heard of Apollo they instantly declared that no primative race could produce such a feat as they lacked the knowledge of science to do so ...

These examples are ultimately relevant because it is the same style of logic. You personally believe that the Apollo moon landing could not be done by such primative people based on your thoughts about their technology. I, however, believe the human race is much greater than people give it credit for.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Space, the final Frontier

Now we assume that these Astros where not wearing their PLSSs.
Where would they go?
The PLSSs (green arrow), went next to where the OPS (red arrow) were stowed:



Between EVAs, one PLSS went back in the recharge station (green arrow), and one was stowed against the hatch, as per the flight checklist:




Originally posted by FoosM
Where the hell did the hammocks go?
Even in these diagrams, the artists has no choice but show the astronauts with helmets and suits on


You answered your own question:



The diagram shows the astronauts in suits because it was the original plan that they would stay in the suits while on the surface. As you point out, it became a comfort issue for the extended missions. The first diagram I posted above shows where the helmets were stowed, on the ascent engine cover, or they could hang in front of the forward instrument panel.


Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, Im still trying to figure out how light can come through the windows when the windows are facing the the shadow side of the LM in the first place

The same way light can come through your bedroom window during the day if it doesn't face the sun: by reflecting off the landscape.



Originally posted by FoosM
As you know, on several missions the astronauts weighed their rock boxes in the LM.
Did they take their helmets off? Did they take their PLSS off? If so, where could they measure
the SRCs and the sample bags? And again, where did they store the SRCs?


At least on Apollo 15 and on, they removed helmets, OPS, and PLSS before weighing the samples. The scale was nothing more than a little spring scale like you might use for weighing fish. In this particular EVA, they brought in one SRC. It was stowed where pilot's OPS went. That OPS was stowed by the dump valve on the floor.




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Nat, you have no end of patience; good work! When FoosM first started down this line I thought of finding the sort of documentation that you did, but I couldn't imagine speed reading hundred of pages of transcripts and checklists to find something FoosM is only going to ignore. Instead, I just closed my eyes and tried to imagine the reality. The engineers had meticulously worked out where everything should be stored for maximum efficiency; they devised step by step procedures to maximize the available work space for any given task. Move such and such unit from the port stowage area to the engine cover and replace it with such and such module. Then the reality sank in: the LM was a bachelor pad. The astronauts would drop things on the floor if convenient, hang things in the wrong places to remind themselves not to lose them, argue about who gets the top hammock, etc, etc, etc, I found the image comical.

Hopefully, FoosM is beginning to realize why the astronauts looked haggard when they got back to Earth. They were simply too exhausted and burnt out on each others' company to be "grinning from ear to ear." Spaceflight may be glamorous, but no-one ever said it was comfortable.
edit on 9-11-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Hello,

I've been watching the success China has had with it's Chang'e 2 satellite now orbiting the moon.

Given it will / is now orbiting at 9 miles above the surface (15 Kilometres), which is not much higher than a commercial airliner flies, shouldn't it be able to take at least one close up photo of one of the 6 apollo landers and 3 rovers allegedly still on the lunar surface?

If you're only 9 miles above the surface, with no pesky atmosphere getting in the way, and no clouds, then surely you could snap a great photo of those alleged apollo ruins with even a modest amateur telescope.

I think you'll find you probably could. But it's not going to happen is it.


Chang'e 2 will eventually swoop down to an orbit just 9 miles (15 km) above the lunar surface to take high-resolution pictures of landing areas for Chang'e 3, Xinhua has reported.
www.space.com...


Some may say the Chinese satellite Chang'e 2 wouldn't have enough fuel to deviate from it's planned orbit to take these photos of the alleged apollo remnants, however it appears it would indeed have more than enough fuel to accomplish this simple task.


China’s second unmanned lunar probe, Chang’e-2, is expected to have enough fuel to fly back to earth, Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC) Vice Chief-Designer has said.

Zhou Jianliang said that Chang’e-2 was carried into lunar orbit by a rocket which was only corrected once during the transfer from earth orbit to lunar orbit, so a large amount of fuel will be left after its mission. He said that there are three possible “fates” for Chang’e-2 after it finishes its six-month mission: landing on the moon, flying to outer space or returning to earth, Xinhua news agency reports.
lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov...


I'll bet $100 it doesn't take one close up photo of anything apollo related, if anything was truly there in the first place.


jra

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, Im still trying to figure out how light can come through the windows when the windows are facing the the shadow side of the LM in the first place


You really seem to have trouble understanding how light reflects off the Lunar surface. The shadow of the LM doesn't cover the entire surface in front of it you know. When one refers to the shadow side of the LM. They mean that side of the LM itself is in shadow. And not everything that's out side the window.

AS11-37-5454
AS11-37-5464
AS11-37-5531

Do you now understand how light can come through the windows?



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Well the Chinese are very intelligent people, so they don't need to waste time and resources on photographing they Apollo sites as they know it happened.
I imagine as the article states their primary concern is conducting the reconaissance for their own manned mission, which kind of makes sense?
You see, the problem is being clever enough to build the technology that would be capable of imaging the Apollo craft and being stupid enough to believe it never happened don't go hand in hand together. So unless the opportunity happens to present itself it's not the priority for any missions in orbit around the Moon. Anyone with half a brain knows people like you will never be convinced because your real agenda is not wherever or not Apollo happened, it's emotional and political motivation fuelled by a hatred of the United States and it's Government. You'll never admit it happened, you probably don't even actually believe it didn't, so noone is going to waste serious time and money on you.

Funnily enough though, the fact that they either can't be bothered to photograph the sites or don't bother publishing the results does imply a couple of things:

1) They are more than certain it happened so don't bother taking photos
2) They have photos showing the sites but haven't or won't publish them

Imagine the political gains and the delight for the Chinese Government if they took photos and there were no craft there


But they haven't and that's because they are there.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by ppk55
 


Imagine the political gains and the delight for the Chinese Government if they took photos and there were no craft there


But they haven't and that's because they are there.



They haven't and that's because they aren't there.

Well the Chinese are very intelligent people, so they don't need to waste time and resources on photographing the empty Apollo sites as they know it didn't happen.





posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

....
These examples are ultimately relevant because it is the same style of logic. You personally believe that the Apollo moon landing could not be done by such primative people based on your thoughts about their technology. I, however, believe the human race is much greater than people give it credit for.


Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc and many other ancient structures may all have wild theories on how they were built, but that doesn't mean they weren't built. They exist today. Anyone can go there and see them for themselves, unlike Atlantis or other mythical locations.

It's quite probable that men have sent probes to the moon, but the evidence of a manned landing is not there. And when you factor the rate of success, i.e. no deaths going to the moon and back, the excuse for why we didn't continue to go, or why we are not there now is invalid. Since it has been shown that support for NASA and moon trips have been pretty consistent. We have also seen with probes that there is much that can be obtained from the moon. And we have seen that many other countries are interested going there. For the US not to be in the lead and making $$$ from such opportunities is laughable .

Sorry folks, the best we can achieve with manned space travel is LEO. And who says thats not impressive? It is. But trips to the moon, mars, etc no way. Thats still beyond our means.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by ppk55
 


Imagine the political gains and the delight for the Chinese Government if they took photos and there were no craft there


But they haven't and that's because they are there.



They haven't and that's because they aren't there.

Well the Chinese are very intelligent people, so they don't need to waste time and resources on photographing the empty Apollo sites as they know it didn't happen.




So now we add, on top of all the scientists and engineers who built the spacecraft, and those in mission control, and those who built and filmed the hoax, and all the geologists who are looking the other way, and all the countries who have built probes and satellites that have gone through and in the Van Allen Belts, you now ad the Chinese who are in on the hoax???

How many millions of people are we up to now?



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
but the evidence of a manned landing is not there.


There is a difference between not accepting evidence, and evidence not being there. There isn't anything in the world that would count for evidence for you. Therefor, presenting any evidence to you is pointless. Either admit that or tell what would convince you.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Laughably the sheep did state earlier what he would accept - JW or any other leading HB saying they were convinced. So much for independant thought




top topics



 
377
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join