Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
So you admit you were very careful to define your criteria to exclude data points necessary to an honest calculation of the success rate. Why? To achieve a predetermined result? That's called "data chopping." It's using statistics to lie.

Maybe Foos should get a job with the Government? They're always looking out for people with his 'talents' to manipulate facts to try and push some sort of agenda. I don't know why this thread keeps continuing, but on the bright side anyone worth anything reading it quickly comes to the conclusion HB's are, shall we say, 'mentally challenged'.
I showed the thread to a couple of friends who have no interest in the Moon landings and they couldn't stop laughing at Foos, PPK and the rest of the 'crew'. Even though they have no scientific background even they could see how completely ridiculous their arguments are.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

No, you conveniently do not read my posts carefully.
I said no fatalities while taking a roundtrip to the moon.
Apollo 1 didnt go to the moon did it?
And Apollo 13 had no fatalities did it?

No, I read what you said very carefully. First you said "rate of success" and then you changed what you were talking about:

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.

What you said.

The rate of success would be how many missions were accomplished successfully during the entire program. The number of deaths during the program is something else. The number of failed lunar missions is yet another. The rate of success for the program is 83%. One out of twelve astronauts died in order to achieve the goal of landing on the Moon. One out of seven landing missions failed: That's a failure rate of 14%. How many astronauts do you want to have died?

Now consider this: would you fly on an airline that boasted that their "success rate" was 100%, excluding flights to Melbourne, in which case only one out of seven flights arrives safely? And flights to Sydney, which result in the death of one out of every twelve passengers? I doubt you would. And you wonder why no-one else has been in a hurry to go back?

Just as the lander window blind was changed after the first manned mission to the moon, so were many other aspects of the mission changed as NASA learned from experience.
Therefore the death of one astronaut before the manned missions flew to the moon is not revelant to to the safety of the later missions. The shock of that death may even have spurred greater efforts to improve safety than would have happened otherwise.

Years back a dentist, untrained in general anaesthesia, killed the third patient he administered a general anaesthetic to. Does that mean that subsequent patients, undergoing this proceedure at his hands, had a one in three chance of dying? Of course not. The numbers are too small to have statistical significance.
Since then he has administered thousands more general anaesthetics, and never again killed anyone.
The shock made him not only reassess his proceedures, but he also went back to school and got himself a degree in anaesthiology. Now he is a wonderful dentist, and has a whole bunch of letters afer his name.

The Apollo astronauts knew from the start that what they were doing was dangerous. They were brave men, prepared to face those dangers in the cause of science, or fame, or whatever it was driving each one. If one death was going to stop them, there never would have been men walking on the Moon, would there?
And I'm sure you're not arguing that Moonwalks never happened.

Flying on the space-shuttle was far more dangerous, and not only statistic wise, but because there was a severe, long-term problem whith the insulation which was not being properly addressed. Before the final launch of the Columbia there were engineers very concerned that the new way of applying foam was no better than the problematic old way, and was being done to save money rather than ensure safety.

And, of course, their fears were realised when the Columbia exploded upon reentering Earth's atmosphere.

However there has not been any problem since in recruiting new astronauts, even though more potentially life-threatening problems have happened with the foam since then. The possibility of a failed mission or even death does not seem to stop these guys, so I don't see why you would think it would stop the Apollo astronauts when that was apparently a much safer way to travel.


I don't know much about solar flares, except that a potentially fatal one occurred between two Apollo missions. The danger of these flares, as far as I can tell from what I've read, was not understood before the Apollo programme. All the radiation testing was focused on the Van Allen belts and another, man-made, radiation belt, resulting from nuclear testing. (Or one of the Van Allen belts is man-made, I'm not sure which it is.)

Do you know how predictable solar flares are? If NASA could not reliably predict space was safe to traverse for the length of the mission, that would certainly put a dampner on plans to go back.

They certainly had no way of predicting solar flares in 1961, although they already knew these flares were reasonably common and could be fatal to an astronaut.

Hazards to Space Travellers from Atomic Radiations

Hmmm . . . Kennedy was enthusiastic and determined to put men on the moon at first, but I've read he suddenly asked NASA for a new financial statement, showing what money they would need if they ditched the Apollo programme. Perhaps he saw this report and changed his mind, feeling the risk was too great.

Perhaps that's why he was shot.

Excuse me, I'm an inveterate speculator.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Why are you so positive no-one landed on the Moon? Were you there?

Now you could hardly expect a person who had been there, (on the moon,) to support the contention that man did not land on the Moon.

Of course he could be an amnesiac astronaut for all we know.

reply to post by AgentSmith


I would only apply this opinion to the likes of Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene', Bart Sibrel and now...Jarrah White (noise):

I don't know why this thread keeps continuing, but on the bright side anyone worth anything reading it quickly comes to the conclusion HB's are, shall we say, 'mentally challenged'.

Whilst thinking this over, it seems incredible, to me, that anyone so intent on "proving" Apollo to be "faked" and undertakes such efforts to study, study, study the details of all the missions, and the ancillary ground support and training and engineering and everything else that went into that venture....

How anyone can have been exposed to that much data, all in context, and not realize it would have been BEYOND anyone's abilities to fabricate so much, in such detail and specifics.....

Just looking at one example, the procedures (checklists) for the Lunar sample container stowage, and EVA pre-and post-preparations, as has been recently discussed in this thread. The sheer complexity of it is a clear sign that it was practiced, practiced, practiced, practiced, practiced on the ground, in training, to work out all "bugs" and cover all contingencies, so that on the actual missions things wouldn't be a surprise --- unexpected snags wouldn't crop up, to be time wasters (or potentially dangerous, even).

Yet, with all of that, you see it was STILL NOT PERFECTED! Each mission encountered a minor glitch of some sort...things that, no matter how much they tested and trained and practiced, unforeseen occurrences would pop up....and be easily adapted to, on the fly so to speak, because of the intelligence, creativity, experience and ingenuity of everyone involved.

How, after examining in such detail the totality of the reality that was Apollo, one can still have such folly as to claim "fakery" is beyond me..... :shk:

reply to post by Kailassa

The numbers are too small to have statistical significance.

Correct. In addition, FoosM's argument is unsound, as there is no logical necessity that any mission fail. Since some of the missions did fail, he was forced to define his "criteria" to exclude data that would falsify it anyway. In others words, he chopped data to support a fallacious argument. Double fail. Your dentist example is a good one, as it demonstrates that results are not due to chance. NASA did not just hurl a tin can filled with men at the Moon and hope nothing went wrong. Having accidentally killed a patient, your dentist would be lying if he said "I've never lost a patient." In fact, dentists are required by law to explain that there are risks involved with certain procedures. You cannot make facts disappear in a puff of carefully chosen rhetoric.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Kailassa

 

The numbers are too small to have statistical significance.

Correct. In addition, FoosM's argument is unsound, as there is no logical necessity that any mission fail.

No necessity perhaps, but it would uncurl my bulldust-sensors if everything had gone smoothly. Of course one is likely to have things go wrong when pursuing such a huge task in literally untrodden territory.
And the facts are, things did go wrong. I'm sure those astronauts were intelligent and resourceful, and their intervention saved more than one mission.

Since some of the missions did fail, he was forced to define his "criteria" to exclude data that would falsify it anyway. In others words, he chopped data to support a fallacious argument. Double fail.

I argued with your point, rather than FoosM's, about statistics, because I knew you would understand what I was saying.
Btw, FoosM overlooked the fact that the death that did occur is relevant to the disbeliever's argument on this because, if the moon missions never took place, that could have been the last straw in convincing NASA it had to be done by fakery.
Because, make no mistake about it, the Moon missions had to appear to be done successfully, one way or another. The world had to see Americans plant the first flag on the Moon.

Your dentist example is a good one, as it demonstrates that results are not due to chance. NASA did not just hurl a tin can filled with men at the Moon and hope nothing went wrong.

Can't you just imagine the pressure and excitement of being in a group of brilliant people, all full of ideas and working long hours together, to bring such a grand plan to fruition? And coping with the disappointments, the frustrations, and desperately finding jury-rigged solutions on the hop to keep the show on the road?

Having accidentally killed a patient, your dentist would be lying if he said "I've never lost a patient." In fact, dentists are required by law to explain that there are risks involved with certain procedures. You cannot make facts disappear in a puff of carefully chosen rhetoric.

True. But, despite this dentist being so horrified by his mistake, I guarantee he never volunteered the information that he'd killed someone to future patients or warned them that they had a danger of dying under general anaesthesia.

I've only once, in all my years, had a doctor be totally honest about the risks of a proceedure, and that doctor is well respected world-wide.



Now, back to another point I was asking you about:

Do you know how predictable solar flares are? If NASA could not reliably predict space was safe to traverse for the length of the mission, that would certainly put a dampner on plans to go back.

They certainly had no way of predicting solar flares in 1961, although they already knew these flares were reasonably common and could be fatal to an astronaut.

Hazards to Space Travellers from Atomic Radiations

reply to post by Kailassa

Btw, FoosM overlooked the fact that the death that did occur is relevant to the disbeliever's argument on this because, if the moon missions never took place, that could have been the last straw in convincing NASA it had to be done by fakery.
Because, make no mistake about it, the Moon missions had to appear to be done successfully, one way or another. The world had to see Americans plant the first flag on the Moon.

A common misperception. The Cold War was an ideological struggle in the eyes of the participants. The US prided itself on representing openness and transparency, as opposed to the Soviet Union's secrecy. This is why from its very inception NASA was a civilian agency that conducted all its operations in the glare of publicity. All of the manned launches were broadcast live. The Soviets only announced successful missions after the fact to conceal their failures. NASA was prepared to suffer the embarrassment of public failure in order to prove the superiority of American freedoms. such as freedom of the press. The Apollo 1 tragedy did spur NASA to improve their systems, but it would have been counter-productive to resort to subterfuge. That would be playing like a "commie." Richard Nixon actually prepared two speeches, one congratulating the astronauts on their success, the other announcing a national day of mourning were they to fail. Remember, martyrs can serve a political purpose.

Do you know how predictable solar flares are? If NASA could not reliably predict space was safe to traverse for the length of the mission, that would certainly put a dampner on plans to go back.

They certainly had no way of predicting solar flares in 1961, although they already knew these flares were reasonably common and could be fatal to an astronaut.

Solar flares were not reliably predictable at the time. The technology has improved greatly over the decades and you can now get flare warnings by e-mail if you wish. The simple fact of the matter is that it was dangerous and they knew it. They researched the levels of radiation as thoroughly as possible and decided it was worth the risk. Showing America's courage was part of the Cold War mentality. Cosmic radiation is like a firefight at night; bullets are flying everywhere at random and in the open you could get wounded or killed. American astronauts showed they were brave enough to break cover and sprint to the nearest tree if called upon.

NASA management was much less risk averse during the Apollo program. Now that they are making plans for missions that will result in long term habitation in the space environment, they are looking at health factors that were relatively unimportant for short term missions like Apollo. Prolonged exposure to radiation has received a great deal of attention by the public, but the long term effects of weightlessness are also a matter of grave concern.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by thesneakiod

Honestly, you, weedwhacker, dj, et all aren't interested in conspiracy theories. as proved by your vists to other threads.

Quite the contrary. Ralph Rene, Jarrah White, et al, are a conspiracy! They have a profoundly anti-science ant-human agenda which they are attempting to foist upon the ignorant. We are exposing it through facts and reason. At least you have noticed that we post all through ATS, unlike certain members of this thread. The ATS motto is "deny ignorance." Jarrah White and his co-conspirators are exploiting ignorance.

reply to post by thesneakiod


Thanks, made me laugh at least.

....and you are all star whores....

Now, that IS hilarious!! Really, makes me smile, the visual it conjures up. And, no....I don't think a Mod should action on that...it is too amusing, and would hate to have it magically "begone".

Looks like I'll have to pull out the alternate picture of myself (joke, of course....put apparently some may have this vision of me....):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84bc904f5d00.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by DJW001
So you admit you were very careful to define your criteria to exclude data points necessary to an honest calculation of the success rate. Why? To achieve a predetermined result? That's called "data chopping." It's using statistics to lie.

Maybe Foos should get a job with the Government? They're always looking out for people with his 'talents' to manipulate facts to try and push some sort of agenda. I don't know why this thread keeps continuing, but on the bright side anyone worth anything reading it quickly comes to the conclusion HB's are, shall we say, 'mentally challenged'.
I showed the thread to a couple of friends who have no interest in the Moon landings and they couldn't stop laughing at Foos, PPK and the rest of the 'crew'. Even though they have no scientific background even they could see how completely ridiculous their arguments are.

Whats even more ridicuous is you lot with your tongues down each others pants awarding stars for pointless trolling posts like your one.

Honestly, you, weedwhacker, dj, et all aren't interested in conspiracy theories. as proved by your vists to other threads. You just like busting balls and creating meaningless arguements. (oh and you are all star whores)
Why are you even member of ATS?

No doubt my post will be removed due to biased mods.

NASA has gotten to the ATS mods!!!! Oh noes!

Which brings me to a question. Just what the heck are these "stars" for?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so your saying the same thing.
One went on the floor, the other to the side bulkhead where they charged the PLSSs.
Or are you saying the second one wasnt stored on the floor?

The PLSSs were both originally (pre-EVA) stowed next to the OPS, on the left side of the LM. After the EVA, one PLSS went back to the same location for recharge, and one was stowed against the hatch.

Ok, we are all on the same page here, the other PLSS was stored on the floor.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, and when I close the curtains, or pull down the shades, it gets sufficiently dark.
And even if I dont, I have eyelids to sufficiently cut-off the light.
And its not like people haven't been able to take naps out during the day in the bright sun.
When you are tired you are tired. If it wasnt a problem for them to sleep while going to the moon, how was it a problem on the LM?

As was pointed out above, the shades on Apollo 11 apparently were easy to scratch and the light became an issue (one of 4 that were mentioned as affecting sleep). Some people are more sensitive to light than others. My wife is particularly annoyed by light at night, so I have covered all the LEDs in our bedroom with black electrical tape.

And it's a problem on the surface, because in space there is significantly less surface area reflecting light in the windows (the only significant light sources would be the Earth, Sun, and Moon). If you consider a hemisphere surrounding the windows of CM, during the middle of the journey, only a small portion of that would be taken up by the Earth, Sun, or Moon. But on the surface, the same hemisphere is occupied largely by the surface of the moon.

Those are all nice explanations, but what if Armstrong didnt have any problem with the light through the window?

Originally posted by FoosM
So, the OPS is on the floor, its about the size of the SRC, so thats makes no difference.

They now have to sleep:
They have the OPS on the floor...
The CDR PLSS goes to the side bulkhead...
The LMP's PLSS is attached... also on the floor?

Their suits and helmets go where? On the ascent engine cover?
If so, it ends up looking like this:


Yet we are led to believe, that these hammocks hang this low:

I don't think that photo is of the helmets as they actually would have been stowed on the ascent engine cover. They're way too close the hatch. The helmets are not that tall.

Well you'll have to accept it, as its an actual photo of the Apollo 17 mission.

Look here:
www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

How and where did they hang up a hammock?

At any rate, the helmet could have been hung over the front instrument panel, allowing ample room for the hammocks.

You mean the front panel in between the windows?
How would that work?
They had an incident were a knob, or button broke, and it almost stranded them on the moon.
Plus, I dont see that helps with space issue.

Originally posted by FoosM
Notice, they dont draw in where the suits go.
Ok, no drawing can reflect the actual situation, I understand that.
But its odd, that all contingencies weren't looked into with the illustrations.
At any rate, and any photos or videos showing the hammocks hung would
help this issue.
Checklists and drawings are not confirmation
for any of the sleep/work that happened in the LM

The suits were stowed behind the ascent engine cover, toward the aft. There was plenty of empty room there between EVAs.

No, dont see it happening.
Show us how this was possible, especially after this photo:
www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

Originally posted by FoosM
So thats after one EVA, what happens when they fill in the other SRC?
That one goes where OPS two was supposedly sitting, so where does
the second OPS go? Also on the floor? And what about the extra rocks collected?
Where do those samples go?

After the EVAs, the OPS were stowed on the floor (to be used in an emergency during ascent):

So there are OPS on the floor during sleep periods.
Thats what you are saying?

Originally posted by FoosM
Best picture I could find on Apollo 11 sleeping position.

Ok, their suits are on.
One PLSS is on the side, the other? On the floor?
And what about the OPS...? On the floor?
Did Aldrin just sit on those things?

One PLSS in the recharge station, one against the hatch (red arrow):

One OPS would go in against the left bulkhead, next to the PLSS, and one would be on the floor, near the dump station (to the right of the ascent engine cover, next to Aldrin's feet).

So, based on what you have just said, you have the OPS and the PLSS on the floor.
We go back to my original question, how did Aldrin and others sleep on the floor?

Originally posted by FoosM
Not to forget, we got astronauts breathing in toxic, alien moon dust
and NASA wasnt worried about their health?

I think it was a surprise to everyone how that stuff got everywhere. But ultimately, it turned out to be a nuisance, not a serious problem.

Or, the astronauts did not go to the moon, and real moondust is very dangerous and would cause serious health issues to anyone exposed to it, in the way Apollo astronauts were supposedly exposed to it.

Originally posted by FoosM
Also, have you been able to find where the extra samples were stored on the CM?

I thought you had already answered that question yourself. But here's the Apollo 16 stowage list: history.nasa.gov...

No, not fully.

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Click here for more information.

wow... so that was a problem but this wasnt:

foosm your a slow person arn't you? lol.. I have a 6th grade level of sci. and I understand what he is saying.. you don't get it on a basic level and that's why you keep getting told again and again.. the answers your looking for but are not educated enough to get it tho lol.. god I get a laugh from you each day.. and I've been reading this a long time now.. think I'm going to start showing people you just so they don't feel so bad.. think your stupid or having a bad day.. read about Foosm in this thread... lol.

reply to post by FoosM

So, based on what you have just said, you have the OPS and the PLSS on the floor.
We go back to my original question, how did Aldrin and others sleep on the floor?

Fitfully. No wonder the light coming through the window bothered them.

Originally posted by FoosM
wow... so that was a problem but this wasnt:

Well there is a thin line that divides what is nothing more than blatant rudeness and on the other hand simply being honest and telling the truth. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference, but it's there. The truth hurts as they say.....

oooo... weird stuff....

Space Shuttle Columbia during STS-80 took a crew of five astronauts into a 17 day, 15 hour and 54 minute mission around the earth, the longest flight in the history of this vehicle. During this lengthy flight a very strange event occurred that even had crewman Dr. Story Musgrave unable to explain what he observed from the shuttle windows.

A large disc shaped object appeared below the Columbia. The shuttle was approximately, 190 Nautical miles high.

However...

Dr. Story Musgrave. NASA

Have you seen or do you believe in the existence of UFOs or other signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

I believe, and scientifically I am certain, that there are endless other living forms out there, including intelligent sentient beings. With the size of the Universe that we have, the billions of galaxies, the distances and scales, and the billions of years that things have been around, of course there are other living forms out there, and of course there are other intelligent forms. It is anthrocentric thinking to believe that we are the only ones

In terms of personally seeing any kind of evidence, I have seen glorious things out there, but I have never seen anything which I consider having the signature of life or an intelligent being. I see little pieces of ice, sparklets, that dance out there and go away from you as they rotate in the sunlight in linear fashion. They turn on and off like little fireflies in space. I also have seen what I call "Story's Snake" out there. I do not know how large this object is because I do not know how far away it was, but twice I have seen it. It has internal motions, almost like a very flexible rubber hose, but you can see it just swimming out there like an eel. This is all part of the debris the shuttle puts off as soon as the main engines shutdown. Sometimes, you also see meteorites flying under you, the falling stars, they do not come in above, they come underneath you between the shuttle and Earth. There are all kinds of glorious light shows and 'Fourth of July's' out there, but I have never, myself, seen anything which had the signature of life. Although, as I have said, I know there are entire universes of living forms out there

However...

On a recent speaking tour, he gave a presentation about astronomy. At the end of his lecture, he projected a slide upon a large screen depicting an artist's conception of the infamous "Grey" aliens who have become a part of modern day culture. His final words shocked many in the audience when he proclaimed: "These guys are real...I guarantee it!"

Recently former USAF officers revealed at a press conference in Washington, DC that UFOs are real and cited several incidents at two air force bases where UFOs "took control" of nuclear missiles and changed their launch codes.

Historical archives concerning military and intelligence information regarding UFOs has been released by the UK, France, Spain, Brazil and South Africa.

Dr. Musgrave is not alone in his assertion that UFOs and RTs are a reality. In past years, other NASA personnel have struggled to get the word out. Such space faring luminaries as Gordon Cooper, Donald Slayton, Gene Cernan, Frank Borman (former chairman of Eastern airlines as well), Neil Armstrong and Scott Carpenter insist UFOs are real and alien intelligences exist.

Apollo astronauts too?


Here is the thing guys, if you make the claim that the testimonies of Apollo astronauts, and astronauts in general can be trusted, then you will have to also accept that they have seen UFOs and other extra terrestrial phenomena.

And the fact that Story Musgrave first claims he didnt see any UFOs, then later (if these sources are accurate) says he did, provides us with evidence that astronauts have no problems lying to the public.




www.agoracosmopolitan.com...
www.spacestory.com...

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
wow... so that was a problem but this wasnt:

Well there is a thin line that divides what is nothing more than blatant rudeness and on the other hand simply being honest and telling the truth. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference, but it's there. The truth hurts as they say.....

edit on 12-11-2010 by AgentSmith because: spelling

Oh... I get you, the truth hurt so they had to censor the post.

reply to post by FoosM


If believing that makes you feel better inside Foos you carry on, after all it's not exactly the biggest fantasy you believe in. *pats foos on the head*

reply to post by CHRLZ


Thanks for your reply CHRLZ, you made some very good points, it seems to be the context of the actual evidence that makes a big difference.

My understanding of the scientific method is restricted to high school science, although I do read New Scientist very regularly.

For example... a claim can be made in isolation which seems shocking, but when you look at it in context of established professional practice a lot of the wind dies out of the shock and it becomes reasonable.

I must say I particularly agree with your posts in Springer's thread about the state of the UFO/ET forum. It would be so much more enjoyable reading through threads that are not peppered with useless accusations and trolling. You can guarantee that these people would not say these things if they were face to face.

P.S. I just saw that you reside in Queensland! I hope the Cane Toads never win another State of Origin. Go the Cockroaches!!!!

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
My understanding of the scientific method is restricted to high school science, although I do read New Scientist very regularly.

An excellent magazine! You've probably noticed, but within the articles they usually have a link you can use to retrieve the original scientific paper the article is based on. They are usually a far cry from the style of the article though as you would expect and, well, let's just say I hope you like maths! Definitely worth looking at though, if you haven't already, even if it's just to take in the the intricacy involved behind the scenes of ideas.