Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55


And...your "suggestion" is utter rubbish nonsense:

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.

AS HAS BEEN pointed out countless times already, in this thread!

Furthermore, Bill Kaysing has been heard on tape, and in other references, admitting to the fact that he helped to start the "We Didn't Land On The Moon" meme, and fake 'hoax", on a dare!! IN other words, he lied....and then, in order to perpetuate that lie, had to continually concoct ever more convoluted stories.

"JW" is certainly no "genius" for believing that crap, with little to no skepticism. Instead, "JW" exhibits an abundance of fallacious and specious "reasoning" --- confirmation bias --- (also seen in great quantities in this thread).

The ONLY way someone would offer up that "suggestion" would be from a position of abject ignorance, and either willful desire to ignore the facts, or intentional need to deceive the gullible.

The spacecraft not only exhibit all the expected signs of the extreme heat of re-entry....they were also tracked, on orbit and on return trajectory from the Moon. These facts MUST be conveniently ignored (as per the typical modus operandi of "JW", as he lies, omits and distorts). By selectively leaving out certain salient data, "JW" continues on his quest to reduce his followers to the same low common denominator where he currently resides, in terms of mental acuity.....

Originally posted by DJW001

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.

"*" for your answer.

Anybody here have anything to add, or disagree?

DJ, can you find any statements made by the USGOV of the time or NASA corroborating your statements?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55

 

And...your "suggestion" is utter rubbish nonsense:

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.

AS HAS BEEN pointed out countless times already, in this thread!

The spacecraft not only exhibit all the expected signs of the extreme heat of re-entry....they were also tracked, on orbit and on return trajectory from the Moon. These facts MUST be conveniently ignored (as per the typical modus operandi of "JW", as he lies, omits and distorts). By selectively leaving out certain salient data, "JW" continues on his quest to reduce his followers to the same low common denominator where he currently resides, in terms of mental acuity.....

Lets look at other factors regarding the reentry.
Is there a difference on how Gemini entered reentered the atmosphere vs Apollo?
Was the capsule steerable?
How did air temperature, air density and the wind effect the parachutes from several kilometers?

was there
GPS type system onboard?
A navigational system?
A flight computer?

The Europeans (ESA) had all this for

The Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator (ARD) was launched on 12 October 1998 on Ariane-503, the third Ariane-5 qualification flight. The ARD performed a sub-orbital flight with amaximum altitude of 830 km, and landed in the Pacific Ocean, with a splashdown point within 5 km of the predicted touchdown zone.

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

www.esa.int...

reply to post by FoosM

DJ, can you find any statements made by the USGOV of the time or NASA corroborating your statements?

I'm not sure what you mean by USGOV, or why the obvious requires a citation, but you will find a long winded explanation in The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

reply to post by FoosM

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

How much experience did ESA have in recovering returning spacecraft in 1998?

Originally posted by Phage

I did tell you what I think he was saying. There are many things to be discovered in mankind's quest to move forward. Those things are hard to learn but with hard work important breakthroughs are made. Those breakthroughs will take mankind toward its destiny.

Originally posted by ppk55
I don't see how any of what you answered addresses these particular words from Armstrong.

"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

I've asked repeatedly what you think he means by 'truth's protective layers'. All I've received is a reply worthy of a politician. ie. dodging the specifics of what 'protective layers' of truth he is talking about. Disappointed.

edit: And if TRUTH does have protective layers, as Armstrong ascertains, what truth is he referring to ?

Still waiting for a reasonable reply to this that explains what the 'protective layers of truth' are.

If Neil Armstrong said breakthroughs are available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers, then what is that protective layer of truth that we need to remove ? Hasn't been answered yet in this forum.

Everyone seems to have avoided it.




Original discussion not fulfilled
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ppk55

If Neil Armstrong said breakthroughs are available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers, then what is that protective layer of truth that we need to remove ? Hasn't been answered yet in this forum.

Everyone seems to have avoided it.

Yeah either way its meaning doesn't appear positive from a NASA standpoint.
He can either be talking about UFOs, alien life forms, faking the missions, or any numerous hidden agendas.

Originally posted by ppk55

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.

Does this really look like it was dropped from a plane to you?




I suppose if you ignore the physical evidence, or are unaware of it, your premise might seem plausible.

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by ppk55

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.

Does this really look like it was dropped from a plane to you?




I suppose if you ignore the physical evidence, or are unaware of it, your premise might seem plausible.

Yeah, because in movies all space ships look brand spanking new:

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

How much experience did ESA have in recovering returning spacecraft in 1998?

How much did NASA have
with the Apollo model?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

How much experience did ESA have in recovering returning spacecraft in 1998?

How much did NASA have
with the Apollo model?

NASA had sixteen manned splashdown recoveries between 1961 through 1966 prior to the Apollo program.

Click the link for a list.
Splashdown Recoveries

reply to post by WWu777


I have a "feeling" this man whant live long...
considering the past "endings" of BRIGHT SCIENTISTS...
But , who knows?

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

How much experience did ESA have in recovering returning spacecraft in 1998?

How much did NASA have
with the Apollo model?

NASA had sixteen manned splashdown recoveries between 1961 through 1966 prior to the Apollo program.

Click the link for a list.
Splashdown Recoveries

edit on 16-2-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

Yes thank you, but I am aware of that.
Thats why I asked how many with the Apollo model.
To be clear, the Mercury capsule, Gemini capsule are all different than the Apollo capsule.

I would assume based on the size, weight and general design each capsule would reenter back to earth differently.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

And I believe it took them 9 hours to recover the craft.
With all the computers they had, the fact that the craft wasn't returning from deep space, why couldn't they get a more precise landing than that of most Apollo missions?

How much experience did ESA have in recovering returning spacecraft in 1998?

How much did NASA have
with the Apollo model?

NASA had sixteen manned splashdown recoveries between 1961 through 1966 prior to the Apollo program.

Click the link for a list.
Splashdown Recoveries

edit on 16-2-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

Yes thank you, but I am aware of that.
Thats why I asked how many with the Apollo model.
To be clear, the Mercury capsule, Gemini capsule are all different than the Apollo capsule.

I would assume based on the size, weight and general design each capsule would reenter back to earth differently.

The list also included the amount of Apollo recoveries. There were 11 manned Apollo recoveries.

Heatshields...

Gemini


vs

Apollo

reply to post by FoosM


Is there a point behind that post?

If so, would be nice if you'd mention it....one of the rules around here, you know.....

Originally posted by Facefirst

The list also included the amount of Apollo recoveries. There were 11 manned Apollo recoveries.

Our question lies in the fact that the splash down accuracy started to become exceptional during Gemini.
My question is, with a new craft, wouldnt there also be a little learning curve?

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, because in movies all space ships look brand spanking new

Huh? What does showing a picture of a Star Wars spaceship have to do with anything? I fail to understand the point you are attempting to make in this post. In case you weren't aware, all the Apollo capsules were brand new when they went up and they were never reused.

It went up looking like this and came back looking like this.

I would assume based on the size, weight and general design each capsule would reenter back to earth differently.

Instead of assuming things (you know what they say about assumption right?), why don't you instead try to figure out if it would indeed make a difference and what could be done about it.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Yeah, because in movies all space ships look brand spanking new

Huh? What does showing a picture of a Star Wars spaceship have to do with anything? I fail to understand the point you are attempting to make in this post.

Then I think you better re-read the original post.
Or let me put it simply,
a damaged looking spacecraft =/= it was in space, reentered from space, was in a space battle, etc.

In case you weren't aware, all the Apollo capsules were brand new when they went up and they were never reused.

It went up looking like this and came back looking like this.

thats linear thinking.
You are filling in the blanks.
Thats how people fall for these kind of tricks:

The Switch has 6 steps:

The con artists spot a target and one of the con artists approach and engage the target in a brief conversation. The second con artist approaches the both of them and feigns to be injured, attracting the attention of both the target and the other con artist.

The second con artist claims that he needs to transport a large amount money to a location across town immediately but cannot get there because of his injury. The second con artist begs one of the two men to go. The first con artist says that he isn't going in that direction, thus shifting responsibility over to the target.

The second con artist offers the target some of the money if he'll agree to take it to the location. Following his agreement to the deal, the first con artist will question his method of transportation - "what if you get mugged?"

The first con artist takes the money and offers to show him how to transport the money without losing it.
The first con artist wraps the money in a large cloth and asks the target to give him any other money that he has that he also wouldn't want stolen. He takes all the money and wraps it in the cloth and puts the cloth behind him, tucked into belt, under his shirt, to demonstrate how to carry it.

When he pulls out the money in the cloth to return it to the target, the first con artist takes another cloth parcel that looks identical to the one with the real money, weighing an equal weight, and gives it to the target.

The target absconds with the cloth parcel and leaves and the two con artists escape with the original money, and the target's money, in the real cloth parcel.

In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record? No. There is no difference between the Apollo evidence and a Hollywood movie. We see a space ship go up, we see some antics on the moon, and we see it being recovered on earth. Does it mean that people actually went to the moon? No.

I would assume based on the size, weight and general design each capsule would reenter back to earth differently.

Instead of assuming things (you know what they say about assumption right?), why don't you instead try to figure out if it would indeed make a difference and what could be done about it.

Instead of telling people what to do, offer them information. This is forum, where ideas and information get exchanged. Forum does not work when people go tell other people to go find out for this or that for themselves. If you got something to add to my statement, do so, otherwise keep those sort of comments to yourself.



www.worldlingo.com...(con)

reply to post by FoosM

In other words, is there actually a record (filmed, televised, or eyewitnesses) of all Apollo craft going into space and returning back to Earth without any break in the record?

Yes, of course there is, and from multiple sources, yet you continue to act as though there is not.

By the way, why are you so hung up on film and television? You still haven'r admitted that you don't know a thing about photography, so who are you to interpret what records there are?