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: 357
377
<< 354  355  356    358  359  360 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


We've already done this one, ppk. They got better with practice, remember?
Second line.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Think about a movie BiB. Like Avatar, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now.
When producing a movie, often times what is filmed is more than what actually gets released.


Bill Kaysing claims to have found that film. Now all you have to do is reveal it to the world and you will have actual evidence. All you have now is ridiculous rhetoric. Where is that film? Surely he would have given it to Jarrah if he really trusted him.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How many times have you heard, even from members on this thread, they believe Apollo because
they saw it on TV when they were young?


The only person who thinks the space program was a TV show is you, FoosM. You have some serious issues around television. On the one hand, you reject all the physical, documentary and consequential (eg; communications satellites) evidence for the space program because of your irrational belief that it only happened on television, but on the other hand you accept everything that Jarrah White says simply because he posts his propaganda on YouTube, ie; television!

Please post a link to anyone on this thread who ever said they "believe Apollo" because they saw it on TV.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


You "don't get" a LOT of things......:


And I just dont get how an explosion would not have sent these people off their trajectory...


Please, by all means, show your work, there. Explain your orbital mechanics and physics calculations that show how the O2 tank explosion in the Service Module bay of Apollo 13 would have "sent these people off their trajectory".

Seems, if you wish to pull YET another irrelevant rabbit out of your voluminous "hat of deluded incredulity", then there had better be a solid, scientific reason for it...as in, you've done the calculations, and have discovered the "smoking gun evidence" of 'fakery', based on that event.

So, show the results of the number-crunching you performed, to explain why you think the explosion would have significantly altered their trajectory. I mean, since you brought it up, you must have figured it out already, right?

You weren't just making it up out of thin air, were you?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Think about a movie BiB. Like Avatar, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now.
When producing a movie, often times what is filmed is more than what actually gets released.


Bill Kaysing claims to have found that film. Now all you have to do is reveal it to the world and you will have actual evidence. All you have now is ridiculous rhetoric. Where is that film? Surely he would have given it to Jarrah if he really trusted him.


What film?
AVATAR?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



How many times have you heard, even from members on this thread, they believe Apollo because
they saw it on TV when they were young?


The only person who thinks the space program was a TV show is you, FoosM.


No, not really. And even so, so what?
You think being part of a majority group think makes one right?




You have some serious issues around television.


As should everyone be concerned with the power and effects of TV.





on the other hand you accept everything that Jarrah White says simply because he posts his propaganda on YouTube, ie; television!


Thats an assumption amounting to a lie.




Please post a link to anyone on this thread who ever said they "believe Apollo" because they saw it on TV.


Ask Weed about it.
But I have not time to go through 300 pages to find a quote for you.
At any rate, I suppose you have no answers regarding the Apollo 12 SEVA. That figures.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

So, show the results of the number-crunching you performed, to explain why you think the explosion would have significantly altered their trajectory. I mean, since you brought it up, you must have figured it out already, right?

You weren't just making it up out of thin air, were you?




Are you stuck with Apollo 12?
Should we get into Apollo 13?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Maybe some of you have come across this,
I haven't. And I don't recall it being brought up in this thread:




Apollo 15 lunar launch from the moon, There are clear shadow anomalies that indicate the launch was conducted on a 1/200 scale out door stage set. watch as the lem rises to "thousands of feet" in reality about 20 feet on the model, the debris shadow is still to the exact Left of the debris, yet the superimposed shadow is moving forward, where it should actually be to the left out of view. The shadows outer sun lit area is there to assist with the visual effect, notice also that this very lit area actually follows the shadow.


Hmmm... ok, lets look at the video:



Ok, for the shadows to behave in this way, where would the SUN have to be?


Apollo 15

Landing: 104.75 GET
SEVA

Start: 106.75 GET, 13.0 deg.
Finis: 107.25 GET, 13.3 deg.
EVA-1
Start: 119.75 GET, 19.6 deg.
Finis: 126.25 GET, 22.9 deg.
EVA-2
Start: 142.25 GET, 31.0 deg
Finis: 149.50 GET, 34.7 deg.
EVA-3
Start: 163.25 GET, 41.7 deg.
Finis: 168.25 GET, 44.3 deg.


Cant seem to find the shadow of the LM in this video:



Hmmm... lets compare




www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No, not really. And even so, so what?
You think being part of a majority group think makes one right?


It has nothing to do with being a member of a group, it has to do with the way one receives and processes information. Anyone who watches a presentation on television without engaging it with critical thought is a fool. Jarrah relies on this.People who reject and deny history are those who have not experienced or investigated it properly, or who have chosen to rewrite it in order to pursue an agenda; Jarrah has an anti-human agenda, hence his revisionism. He is unable to believe that human beings are intelligent and capable enough to accomplish anything but cruelty and deceit. This is no doubt based on his own personal experience.


As should everyone be concerned with the power and effects of TV.


You entirely fail to see my point. Most people understand that the television viewing experience is vicarious, and submit its impressions to critical analysis. You refuse to be critical of Jarrah White and accept his propaganda without question. As for the historicity of the space program, as I said, it was more than a TV series; at the time, the development of the nation's technological and industrial capabilities was its foremost priority. The United States believed that it was facing an existential challenge from the Soviet Union, society was geared towards achieving technological supremacy; you don't achieve that by "make believe."


Thats an assumption amounting to a lie.


That is an extremely powerful and offensive accusation; please provide a link to any post where you have disagreed with any of Jarrah's outrageous claims and fallacies, or aver right now which of his lies you disagree with... or apologize.


Ask Weed about it.
But I have not time to go through 300 pages to find a quote for you.
At any rate, I suppose you have no answers regarding the Apollo 12 SEVA. That figures.


I suggest you ask Weed; I'm pretty sure I know what his answer will be and it doesn't involve sitting on his rear end with his nose glued to the TV. I suspect that it involves growing up in a time and place where creating scientists, engineers and pilots was a national priority; being fascinated by flight, learning about aerodynamics and physics, building and flying model rockets to learn about thrust, impulse, drag and so forth. In other words, like most kids at the time, he actually participated in the space program.

Yes, I can see you're very busy. You have had no time to explain why stars should be visible in photographs of the Moon, no time to explain why cameras' reflections should not be rotated towards the center of a photo and no time to explain why it makes any difference whether there was a SEVA on Apollo 12, or even Apollo 11. In any event, I believe I have responded to the SEVA issue, but since you now wish to move on to something else, I will backtrack and answer in greater detail.

Whereas Apollo 11's objective was simply to land on the Moon, Apollo 12 needed to land with more precision, One of the tasks they were to accomplish was returning materials from another craft that had landed previously. The technical debrief makes it clear that the astronauts were having a difficult time identifying landscape features through the windows. The question of how accurate spacecraft navigation and tracking was had national security implications, so it was advantageous to create the illusion that NASA could land a spacecraft with great precision and did not have to "second guess" themselves. As has been pointed out, the discretion around the SEVA only makes sense if the mission is real. There would be no point in conducting a SEVA if it were only a movie. You wasted an entire post telling a pointless little story that you made up in your head.
edit on 11-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foosm Foosm Foosm do you suffer from alzheimer's MANY MANY pages back we explained to YOU and all the others on here that DONT have a clue about PHOTOGRAPHY why the shadows on photographs on the Moon can appear to be going in different directions.

Now why dont be a good little boy and look back WHY and see how that applies to the video of Apollo 15 taking off from the Moon if you can work that out you will see the video you posted is BS.

Lets see if you can ACTUALLY work that out for yourself and maybe you will realise that JW is indeed one of the biggest DH'S on youtube of which there are MANY!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Maybe some of you have come across this,
I haven't. And I don't recall it being brought up in this thread:


Apollo 15 lunar launch from the moon, There are clear shadow anomalies that indicate the launch was conducted on a 1/200 scale out door stage set. watch as the lem rises to "thousands of feet" in reality about 20 feet on the model, the debris shadow is still to the exact Left of the debris, yet the superimposed shadow is moving forward, where it should actually be to the left out of view. The shadows outer sun lit area is there to assist with the visual effect, notice also that this very lit area actually follows the shadow.


Wow! This guy was able to calculate that it was shot on a 1/200 scale set! How did he do that? Why not 1/250 or 1/100? It must be true because:

1. He gave an exact figure
2. It is a video, and TV never lies, right?

Unless he can show his calculations, his statement that it was shot at 1/200 scale is a "Potemkin number." A Potemkin number is a number plucked out of thin air to create the illusion of precision or authority. He might just as well said 1/150 scale or 1/500 scale for all the "evidence" he has gathered. Until he can plot some data, back it up and show his work, the only statement he can make with any degree of truth is: "In my opinion, this is fake."

As for the "debris," why did he freeze that particular frame? Because in earlier frames there were so many different light and dark specks that it was clear that they were not bright objects and their shadows, but simply differently colored bits of debris? Why does he think the light specks are debris and the dark specks are their shadows? They're just splotches on grainy 16mm film. As for the shadow of the LM... really, FoosM, haven't you performed the "jumping up and down outside" experiment yet? By the way, do you also agree with the video maker's MGM/ Kubrick/ Walt Disney hypothesis? I for one would love to see anti-semitic Walt Disney in the same room as left leaning "secular Jew" Stanley Kubrick. Talk about "Fantasyland!"

edit on 11-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What film?
AVATAR?


An apology and a correction. When I stated that Bill Kaysing claimed to have footage in his possession I was wrong. I'm sorry for the confusion. Upon checking my facts, it turns out that it was Bart Sibrel who made the claim:


Sibrel displayed footage which he claimed was accidentally sent to him from NASA which, according to Sibrel, was evidence that the Apollo 11 Astronauts were staging shots of the Earth to make it appear that the spacecraft was en route to the moon when Sibrel believes it was still in Low Earth Orbit.[3][4] Those defending Project Apollo state the "secret" NASA footage Sibrel uses is actually widely available and merely shows the Astronauts practicing for an upcoming live telecast.[5]

Wikipedia.

I apologize for any confusion.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I for one would love to see anti-semitic Walt Disney in the same room as left leaning "secular Jew" Stanley Kubrick. Talk about "Fantasyland!"


Where the hell does this kind of talk fit into the debate????


jra

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Cant seem to find the shadow of the LM in this video


That's because you're looking at it from behind. The LM always landed with it's back to the Sun, so from this angle you can not see the shadow.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Were you missing in class that day? We did this already.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Where the hell does this kind of talk fit into the debate????


No offense was intended. The person who made the video implying that Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick were conspiring together on behalf of the United States government seems to be unaware of the various actors' personal idiosyncrasies that would make such a collaboration unlikely.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I've got a question for everyone here, debunkers and believers.

What do you think the USGOV with Apollo
hope to achieve against the USSR's space program?

Did they think by landing men on the moon first would would somehow halt Soviet progression in space dominance?

That it would stop the Soviets from trying to land on the moon themselves because they would come in second?

I mean, why was the race over because the US landed man on the moon?
Considering that landing men on mars was still a discussed challenge?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What do you think the USGOV with Apollo
hope to achieve against the USSR's space program?

Did they think by landing men on the moon first would would somehow halt Soviet progression in space dominance?

That it would stop the Soviets from trying to land on the moon themselves because they would come in second?

I mean, why was the race over because the US landed man on the moon?
Considering that landing men on mars was still a discussed challenge?


Finally! An excellent question. Have a star. No, it was never about landing men on the Moon first. The goal of landing men on the Moon to a particular deadline was never anything more than an organizing principle. It allowed administrators and project managers to prioritize things in a consistent manner. For example, in the early 1960's, NASA devoted a great deal of effort in researching lifting bodies and "space plane" designs. The results were not encouraging. (If you've ever seen the opening of "The Six Million Dollar Man," you have some idea how discouraging they were.) The Brass asked themselves: "Is this line of research absolutely necessary to our mission of landing men on the Moon and returning them safely to the Earth?" Absolutely not. Rendezvous and docking yes, gliding back to Earth, NO. Simple. X billion dollars saved. (The military continued their research out of their own pockets.)

It was never a question of halting Soviet progress, it was a question of out-performing the Soviets. Americans had vivid memories of that old softy Khruschev pounding his shoe on a table at the UN and proclaiming "We will bury you!" Being the first nation to land people on the Moon made that promise sound rather hollow. The US managed to demonstrate that it's industrial base, technological know-how and managerial skill completely outclassed that of the Soviet Union.

No, the "race" didn't end because America "won." The Soviets chose to demonstrate their prowess by launching a manned orbital spy satellite that was equipped with a cannon. Unfortunately, that sort of thing was necessarily classified as "secret" under the Soviet system, so no-one ever realized how impressive that was. Poor choice of organizing principles, to say the least!

You will notice that all the discussions of future interplanetary missions are multinational in concept. Perhaps there is something to be said for good old fashioned competition.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
We've already done this one, ppk. They got better with practice, remember?

Originally posted by debunky
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Were you missing in class that day? We did this already.

Wow, those 2 posts got 8 stars .. quite the achievement.

From what I've gathered so far in my short time at ATS .. usually posts consisting of solid, interesting information gets stars, not quite sure how the above posts compare to those.

Thanks DJW, I do remember the posts about how the splashdowns became instantly more accurate, however seeing as it at most was a 2 page discussion, if you could call it that, I'm not satisfied.

You say 'They got better with practice, remember?'

Yet you still haven't shown how they got better with practice.

From my original post...


Originally posted by ppk55

I also find it very curious that Apollo 13 splashed down only 1.85 Kilometres from the ship. WOW.
With everything that went wrong, and having to control the ship manually, it's amazing they were so accurate.

What amazes me even more is that Apollo 15 splashed down at the exact same distance as Apollo 13 ... 1.85 kms from the ship.

This is where things get quite puzzling. Over the course of the US manned space flights they often missed their targets not by 1 or 2 kilometres, but hundreds, try 400km.

Then on March 17, 1966, something truly magical happens with Gemini 8. From this mission onwards ALL splashdowns become instantly more accurate. Not gradually, instantly.


I'm assuming debunky that you thought this discussion was closed because of these posts that you directly referenced...


retrofire calculations had not taken into account the spacecraft's weight loss in consumables

Mercury MA-7: 300km

This misalignment alone would have caused the spacecraft to overshoot the planned impact point by about 175 miles. But the retrorockets began firing three seconds late, adding another 15 miles or so to the trajectory error.

Gemini 4: 80km

Now they would have to resort to a rolling Mercury-type reentry, rather than the lifting bank angle the computer was supposed to help them achieve.

Gemini 5: 145km

the result of incorrect navigation coordinates transmitted to the spacecraft computer from the ground network.


So now we have excuses for the many missions that went off target by hundreds of km's before the magical, and sudden appearance of Gemini 8 super accuracy.

So did Gemini 8 have any problems ... why yes it did .. yet it splashed down just 2 Km's from the ship.


Emergency

After the Agena began execution of its stored command program, which instructed the Agena to turn the combined spacecraft 90° to the right, Scott noticed that they were in a roll. Armstrong used the Gemini's Orbit Attitude and Maneuvering System (OAMS) to stop the roll, but the moment he stopped using the thrusters, it started again. They immediately turned off the Agena and this seemed to stop the problem for a few minutes. Then suddenly it started again.

the Gemini spacecraft began to roll even faster, and approached one revolution per second. The astronauts were now in danger of impaired vision and loss of consciousness due to the violent motion. At this point Armstrong shut down the OAMS and used the Re-entry Control System reaction control system (RCS) to stop the spin. After steadying the spacecraft, they tested each OAMS thruster in turn and found that Number 8 had stuck on. Mission rules dictated that the flight be terminated once the RCS had been fired for any reason, so Gemini VIII prepared for an emergency landing.

It was decided to let the spacecraft reenter one orbit later so that it could land in a place that it could be reached by the secondary recovery forces. It had planned for Gemini 8 to land in the Atlantic, but that was supposed to be three days later on. So USS Leonard F. Mason started to steam towards the new landing site 800 kilometers east of Okinawa and 1,000 kilometers south of Yokosuka, Japan.

Most of the reentry occurred over Asia, beyond the range of NASA tracking stations.


So with all of those problems, Gemini 8 would be the first of many, many missions to land spectacularly accurately. (even with it's many dilemmas)

What was the technological breakthrough on this mission that allowed them to land so accurately after all of those on-board emergencies?

What was the technological breakthrough that allowed every other manned mission thereafter to achieve these astoundingly accurate results.



My suggestion is this .. they were dropped from a plane and not space, as detailed in JW's video 'MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 8.' Starts at 9.05.




edit on 14-2-2011 by ppk55 because: added: 'above posts' + ''thereafter' + 'was'

edit on 14-2-2011 by ppk55 because: added: 'above posts' + ''thereafter' + 'was' + new graphic



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



My suggestion is this .. they were dropped from a plane and not space,


You are welcome to make that suggestion. Now all you have to do is explain what happened to the spacecraft they launched on the Titan II rocket. It was under continuous observation from the moment it was placed upon the booster. Both the Americans and the Soviets followed it closely as it passed over every country on Earth every ninety minutes.

Thank you for sharing the story of how Neil Armstrong over-rode the capsule's controls in order to stabilize it. It makes it clear why he was selected for Apollo 11, where he made a similar command decision.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 354  355  356    358  359  360 >>

log in

join