Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Apollo Moon Rocks: NASA's Dirty Little Secrets

As usual, we've been through this one before, starting here.

Thanks for that!
I didnt have time to go look for it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
FoosM, did all the Apollo camera negatives go through NPIC? I think NASA and NPIC had an agreement about camera negatives. We have seen only NASA pictures after they have been processed by the CIA.

edit on 4/2/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: creative license

Well SJ you had provided the following document:

www.gwu.edu...

That pretty much confirms that NPIC filtering NASA photography.
Why would this be necessary for MOON trips?

We also have the following:

The other things to which the President repeatedly referred may now be considered a tacitacknowledgment that, less than five years after the launch of Sputnik I, the United States had cre-ated an extraordinary series of reconnaissance satellites, and that the program, called CORONA, had already moved from experimental to operational status. Operational space-borne reconnais-sance completely transformed the context and progress of the Cold War—but it was conducted at the highest and most compartmentalized levels of secrecy in the history of the nation.The very possibility of reaching the Moon publicly was inevitably linked to the technological innovations that allowed secret observation of the Soviet Union and the rest of theworld, but the nature of that linkage remained hidden for the next third of a century. In late 1995 the CORONA program was declassified. Public release of previously deeply classified data nowmakes it clear that the coupling of open and secret, as in the Apollo program and CORONA, wasnot unusual, and was in fact the general case. Such a coupling—now referred to as the “Dual Use”policy—extends through U.S. space history. Since 1968, for example, the Civilian ApplicationsCommittee (CAC), a federal interagency committee, has provided federal civil agencies access to classified reconnaissance information. The roots of such contemporary programs as Medea, which provides top U.S. scientists access to classified space-borne intelligence data for tackling global

Its clear to me the evidence is pointing to Apollo not only being a public relations program but as well a cover for intelligence surveillance.



kms1.isn.ethz.ch...

It's official.

Jarrah has lost his mind:
www.youtube.com...

The kangaroo kid is on a one way trip to an insane asylum.

Keep ignoring the science Jarrah. (the intro is a bit crude, but the scientific points are made later on)
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
FoosM, did all the Apollo camera negatives go through NPIC? I think NASA and NPIC had an agreement about camera negatives. We have seen only NASA pictures after they have been processed by the CIA.

edit on 4/2/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: creative license

Well SJ you had provided the following document:

www.gwu.edu...

That pretty much confirms that NPIC filtering NASA photography.
Why would this be necessary for MOON trips?

We also have the following:

The other things to which the President repeatedly referred may now be considered a tacitacknowledgment that, less than five years after the launch of Sputnik I, the United States had cre-ated an extraordinary series of reconnaissance satellites, and that the program, called CORONA, had already moved from experimental to operational status. Operational space-borne reconnais-sance completely transformed the context and progress of the Cold War—but it was conducted at the highest and most compartmentalized levels of secrecy in the history of the nation.The very possibility of reaching the Moon publicly was inevitably linked to the technological innovations that allowed secret observation of the Soviet Union and the rest of theworld, but the nature of that linkage remained hidden for the next third of a century. In late 1995 the CORONA program was declassified. Public release of previously deeply classified data nowmakes it clear that the coupling of open and secret, as in the Apollo program and CORONA, wasnot unusual, and was in fact the general case. Such a coupling—now referred to as the “Dual Use”policy—extends through U.S. space history. Since 1968, for example, the Civilian ApplicationsCommittee (CAC), a federal interagency committee, has provided federal civil agencies access to classified reconnaissance information. The roots of such contemporary programs as Medea, which provides top U.S. scientists access to classified space-borne intelligence data for tackling global

Its clear to me the evidence is pointing to Apollo not only being a public relations program but as well a cover for intelligence surveillance.

kms1.isn.ethz.ch...

Thanks for answering FoosM. I wanted to ask you directly instead of just assuming. For me the provenance of the negatives (indeed, the destroyed original telemetry tapes) is an important detail because in my mind I am not longer seeing these as evidence of "NASA pictures taken on the Apollo missions". What I am actually looking at, in every single case, are "photographs purported to have been taken during Apollo moon missions which are first screened by NPIC/CIA and then presented by NASA to the general public."

The CIA. Yep. Drug running. Arms dealing. Assassinating. Torturing. Mind controlling... An occult agency that practically wrote the book on how to cook up a good conspiracy theory... Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you the CIA. en.wikipedia.org...

Sign me up reading the "THROUGH A SHUTTER DARKLY: THE TANGLED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CIVILIAN, MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE REMOTE SENSING IN THE EARLY U.S. SPACE PROGRAM" right now. Thanks for the link!

reply to post by Facefirst


How about this one??


Bring it on???

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well I'd like to see any proof of the moon landings that is NOT in any way associated with NASA..

Anyone have something???

reply to post by backinblack


I think someone with a PHD in astrophysics has better things to do than debate a loon like Jarrah.

Again, what are Jarrah's qualifications to debate astrophysics? Or any other sciences? ANY?

N O N E.

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by backinblack

 

I think someone with a PHD in astrophysics has better things to do than debate a loon like Jarrah.

Again, what are Jarrah's qualifications to debate astrophysics? Or any other sciences? ANY?

N O N E.

Hey, it was him that said "Bring it on" and he WAS referring to the likes of JW..
Kind of a cop out from where I sit..
Say what you mean and mean what you say...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Well I'd like to see any proof of the moon landings that is NOT in any way associated with NASA..

Anyone have something???

I've got a little something.

Two countries that have space programs called "India" and "Japan."

Chandrayaan from India:
www.defence.pk...

Japan:
www.jaxa.jp...

Of course, not just one, but two third party confirmations will never be good enough for hoaxers.

reply to post by backinblack


Phil Plait says that but then he never brings it. He didn't bring it on the podcast with Penn and Joe Rogan that's for sure. I haven't heard anything he says that allows me to believe that he can think outside the box. Plait is over reliant on his practiced scripts and doesn't deal well with Rogan's everyman approach. If you haven't heard that podcast I'd highly recommend it because Rogan touches on all the same issues the Jarrah White does... as Plait stays in the safe zone he can't explore skeptical challenges to the orthodox view. Therefore he is a NASA zealot and a NASA fundamentalist in the Church of NASA.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by backinblack

 

I think someone with a PHD in astrophysics has better things to do than debate a loon like Jarrah.

Again, what are Jarrah's qualifications to debate astrophysics? Or any other sciences? ANY?

N O N E.

Hey, it was him that said "Bring it on" and he WAS referring to the likes of JW..
Kind of a cop out from where I sit..
Say what you mean and mean what you say...

There's quite a difference between debating a fellow astrophysicist who disagrees versus debating an unqualified loon like Jarrah White.

So you are telling me that Jarrah White knows more that the world's entire scientific community?

You are inferring that Jarrah White is an expert in everything from rocket science to lunar geology?

The more I have looked into the landings, the more I'm convinced they happened.

reply to post by Facefirst


Weren't there some US instruments on board both Indian and Japense craft? And some kind of intelligence / espionage scandal with the Indian craft as I recall. It's not exactly independant confirmation. The Japanese craft 'broke down' after it's illicit lunar rendevous with LROC. IIRC. Two foreign satellites link up in lunar orbit for data gathering experiment. A few days later, one of the satellites dies. Could it be a space war we don't know about???

reply to post by Facefirst

I've got a little something.
Two countries that have space programs called "India" and "Japan."
Chandrayaan from India:
www.defence.pk...
Japan:
www.jaxa.jp...
Of course, not just one, but two third party confirmations will never be good enough for hoaxers.

I think you will find both had NASA involvement...
Thought I made that clear...

reply to post by Facefirst

There's quite a difference between debating a fellow astrophysicist who disagrees versus debating an unqualified loon like Jarrah White.

Mate, he said "Bring it on"...
Who was he referring too if not the likes of JW ??

BTW, how many astrophysicist in this thread??

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Well I'd like to see any proof of the moon landings that is NOT in any way associated with NASA..

Anyone have something???

I've got a little something.

Two countries that have space programs called "India" and "Japan."

Chandrayaan from India:
www.defence.pk...

Japan:
www.jaxa.jp...

Of course, not just one, but two third party confirmations will never be good enough for hoaxers.

edit on 3-4-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

They confirmed what, a moon exists?
Well we can all see it.
But a moon with water.
Nice, but that is all.
They haven't confirmed Apollo.

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Facefirst
reply to post by backinblack

 

I think someone with a PHD in astrophysics has better things to do than debate a loon like Jarrah.

Again, what are Jarrah's qualifications to debate astrophysics? Or any other sciences? ANY?

N O N E.

Hey, it was him that said "Bring it on" and he WAS referring to the likes of JW..
Kind of a cop out from where I sit..
Say what you mean and mean what you say...

There's quite a difference between debating a fellow astrophysicist who disagrees versus debating an unqualified loon like Jarrah White.

So you are telling me that Jarrah White knows more that the world's entire scientific community?

You are inferring that Jarrah White is an expert in everything from rocket science to lunar geology?

The more I have looked into the landings, the more I'm convinced they happened.

Children with with unadulterated minds can stump so called experts and scientists.
You dont need an equivalent amount of schooling or expertise to be able to be able to conduct a debate and ask the hard questions.

Shoot, the average person could of known not to build a nuclear power plant on or near a major fault line.
But maybe he or she wouldnt have said anything because... dont have a PHD.
To put your faith blindly in the so called "educated" is folly.

Many non-scientists are awed by the power and seeming certainty of scientific knowledge. So are most students of science. Textbooks are full of apparently hard facts and quantitative data. Science seems supremely objective. Moreover, a belief in the objectivity of science is a matter of faith for many modern people. It is fundamental to the worldview of materialists, rationalists, secular humanists, and all others who uphold the superiority of science over religion, traditional wisdom, and the arts.

The cases of fraud uncovered in the great unpoliced hinterlands of science are rarely brought to light by the official mechanisms of peer review, refereeing of papers, and the potential for independent replication. And even if attempts to replicate an experiment fail, this is usually ascribed to a failure to reproduce the conditions of the experiment precisely enough. There is a big psychological and cultural barrier against accusing colleagues of fraud -- unless one has strong personal reasons to suspect their integrity. Most known cases of fraud come to light as a result of whistle-blowing by immediate colleagues or rivals, often as a result of some personal grievance. When this happens, the typical response of laboratory chiefs and other responsible authorities is to try to hush the matter up. But if the charges of fraud do not blow over, if allegations are made persistently enough, and if the evidence becomes overwhelming, then an official inquiry is held. Someone is found guilty and dismissed in disgrace.

Oh gee, how come scientists don't challenge Apollo?
Well there you have it.

Scientists generally feel the need to preserve an idealized self-image, not just for personal and professional reasons, but also because this image is projected on to them by others. There are many people who put their faith in science rather than religion, and need to believe in its superior, objective authority. And to the extent that science replaces religion as the source of truth and values, then scientists become a kind of priesthood. As with priests in general, there is then a public expectation that they will live up to the ideals they preach: in the case of scientists, objectivity, rationality, and the quest for truth. "Some scientists, in their public appearances, can be noticed playing up to this role, which seems to invest them as cardinals of reason propounding salvation to an irrational public." There is also a strong disincentive for them to admit that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the beliefs and institutions that legitimize their own position. While it is relatively easy to admit that individuals may err, and to purify the community by expelling them, it is much harder to question the beliefs and idealizations on which the whole system depends.

The competitors in a given field try many different approaches but are always quick to switch to the recipe that works best. Science being a social process, each researcher is trying at the same time to advance and gain acceptance for his own recipes, his own interpretation of the field. ... Science is a complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants provided he narrows his vision sufficiently. . . . Scientists are individuals and they have different styles and different approaches to the truth. The identical style of all scientific writing, which seems to spring from a universal scientific method, is a false unanimity imposed by the current conventions of scientific reporting.

Criticizing 'Science' - Illusions Of Objectivity
By Rupert Sheldrake
Excerpted from 'Illusions Of Objectivity'
Page 165-177
Riverhead Books - 1995
ISBN 1-57322-014-0
4-2-11

www.rense.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Children with with unadulterated minds can stump so called experts and scientists.

Thank you for making your personal agenda explicit.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Children with with unadulterated minds can stump so called experts and scientists.

Thank you for making your personal agenda explicit.

What is this off topic remark supposed to mean?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by exponent

 

OK, so how much thrust/force was required by the LM compared to a similar situation on earth?

I guess we're never going to get the answer to this question? I asked you to do the basic maths yourself as you've been quick to accuse me of being incapable.

I don't even know what purpose your question would serve, as you didn't seem willing to accept any argument that came from us, no matter how simple it was.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


What sort of delusional fantasy alternate universe world do you live in?

The Japanese craft 'broke down' after it's illicit lunar rendevous with LROC. IIRC. Two foreign satellites link up in lunar orbit for data gathering experiment. A few days later, one of the satellites dies.

HUH???

You think....you actually sat there, and wrote.....that the LRO/LCROSS satellite actually rendezvoused with the Japanese Kaguya??? Major forehead slap, required here I'm afraid......

Japan's Kaguya spacecraft launched toward the moon in September 2007 on a one-year mission to explore the lunar surface. JAXA officials have since said that the flight of Kaguya, also known as the SELenological and ENgineering Explorer (SELENE), may be extended.

www.space.com...


WHEN was the LRO/LCROSS, again?? That's right....in 2009!!

Kaguya, in 2007!! A PLANNED one-year mission! Let's see, how it went:

KAGUYA was descended to the 50km altitude from February 1, 2009 and then was descended again to 10-30km in Lower altitude (Perilune) from April 16, 2009. Finally, KAGUYA was impacted to the south-east of near side of the Moon on June 10, 2009 (GMT).

www.kaguya.jaxa.jp...

More details....pay note of its orbital characteristics:

en.wikipedia.org...



NOW....LRO/LCROSS?

Wasn't even launched until June 2009! 18th JUNE! 2009!

SELENE had been de-orbited when?? Oh, yeah....JUNE! 2009! ON THE 10th!!
en.wikipedia.org...


The similarity? They were both inserted into polar orbits. This provides the most efficient way to photograph, map, explore ALL of the surface of a globe, as you orbit it. Because, the body spins on its axis, beneath the satellite. BUT.....a "rendezvous" between two autonomous satellites? Orbital mechanics is a bit more complicated than depicted in popular science fiction....

I think the 'research' you are conducting on this subject requires a very large dose of salt, in order to be swallowed......


Your fantasy "boogeyman" of some sort of nefarious goings-on? Utterly incorrect. SELENE was impacted, as planned. It (she) did perform outside the original mission parameters, by about one year or so.....