Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by 000063

The "military-industrial" complex is so vaguely defined by you as to encompass effectively every gov't agency ever. NASA itself, while gov't run and employing, on occasion, military personnel, is not itself a military agency. Put down those goalposts.

Anyone that believes NASA is not wholly controlled by the military seriously needs to see a shrink..

It would be patently obvious to believe nothing less..
National security is written into NASA law..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063

 

The "military-industrial" complex is so vaguely defined by you as to encompass effectively every gov't agency ever. NASA itself, while gov't run and employing, on occasion, military personnel, is not itself a military agency. Put down those goalposts.

Anyone that believes NASA is not wholly controlled by the military seriously needs to see a shrink..

It would be patently obvious to believe nothing less..
National security is written into NASA law..

Unsupported statements, poisoning the well. Care to bring up some actual evidence, or are you just going to keep going on about "NASA law"? I can understand how there might be some National Security concerns, and co-operation with the military and intelligence communities--someone has to help launch those spysats, after all, but "controlled" is a bit of a stretch. Backup, please.

Oh, and getting back to FoosM's "point", inconsistent paperwork is usually the result of personnel, not the system. Maybe they didn't have standardized forms back then, who knows? If They were deliberately muddying the waters, it would make more sense to have consistent paperwork, which makes it easier to make sure they all have their stories straight. Also, an "agent of the MI complex" is not the same thing as a "military agency", even if it were true.

reply to post by 000063


You're kidding..
What's your old username??

reply to post by backinblack


I might have to give you the same advice.....

Don't worry, some members do more than just rant without adding anything to the thread..

Now.....go back and heed attention to this thread....particularly the reason and logic and facts...or, continue to rely on charlatans' tricks and ridiculous games, and incompetent "analysis" .

(....you know.....like from those who post Foolish nonsense.........oh, and Jarrah White, too.....)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

I might have to give you the same advice.....

Don't worry, some members do more than just rant without adding anything to the thread..

Now.....go back and heed attention to this thread....particularly the reason and logic and facts...or, continue to rely on charlatans' tricks and ridiculous games, and incompetent "analysis" .

(....you know.....like from those who post Foolish nonsense.........oh, and Jarrah White, too.....)

And yet in another thread that you are ignoring, you are trying to state that atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with dynamic pressure..

You are a joke weed and ignoring the hard questions doesn't make you look any better.

Originally posted by 000063

Oh, and getting back to FoosM's "point", inconsistent paperwork is usually the result of personnel, not the system. Maybe they didn't have standardized forms back then, who knows? If They were deliberately muddying the waters, it would make more sense to have consistent paperwork, which makes it easier to make sure they all have their stories straight. Also, an "agent of the MI complex" is not the same thing as a "military agency", even if it were true.

edit on 30-4-2011 by 000063 because: Addition.

Well when you consider Apollo astronauts were military, much of the support was military, and that 20 to 50% of NASA's budget comes from DoD. Guess who is influencing who?

Inconsistent paperwork human error? Right, whatever. I guess you never worked for the USGOV.
And even if you can prove that the USGOV was by accident inconsistent, it doesn't make sense that those scientists were.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063

 

You're kidding..
What's your old username??

Care to actually address any of my points instead of trying to imply I'm a sockpuppet? If I was, I'd know how to turn off the little "Subscribe" checkbox for good and for all, and to get the profile thingy off GMT+3. Anyone have any advice on those?

Originally posted by FoosM
Well when you consider Apollo astronauts were military, much of the support was military, and that 20 to 50% of NASA's budget comes from DoD. Guess who is influencing who?

Source please: NASA claims they report to the White House(more specifically, the Executive Branch), which is on the public record. And once again, military personnel working for NASA !=military agency. I like how you've moved the goalposts from "military agency" to "military influence".

Inconsistent paperwork human error? Right, whatever. I guess you never worked for the USGOV.
And even if you can prove that the USGOV was by accident inconsistent, it doesn't make sense that those scientists were.

Why not? People mess up paperwork. It happens. How would "human error" not make sense?

reply to post by backinblack


"...ignoring...."???

...you are trying to state that atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with dynamic pressure..

Again, with the misrepresentation of what I write....it is called lying, when you ascribe such things to someone else. And, that very sentence (above) applies here, to space travel discussions as well (bet you never thought of that?)

Really, the "atmospheric pressure" differences from Sea Level, to the top of the troposphere, lower stratosphere (levels where most commercial air traffic operate, in cruise flight --- ~FL300 to FL 420) are a "red-herring" bit of distraction, and attempt to confuse and garble the facts and science of aerodynamics.

This relates to space flight (the launch phase, actually) because of the point of launch ascent called "Max Q".

During a normal Space Shuttle launch, for example, max Q is at an altitude of approximately 11 km (35,000 ft). During a typical Apollo mission, max Q occurred between 13 and 14 km of altitude (43,000–46,000 ft).

And as I have repeatedly attempted to instruct......:

(excerpt)

If the fluid in question can be considered an ideal gas (which is generally the case for air), the dynamic pressure can be expressed as a function of fluid pressure and Mach number.

en.wikipedia.org...

(Many are confusing the dynamic pressure exerted by incompressible fluids, with the behaviors of gases....).

Since this thread seems to be on an endless loop, and the same issues are thrown up time and again in the hopes that someone - anyone, might believe this time - I feel no compunction whatever in repeating myself here in opposition to what I believe is classic mental illness.

I leave you with this bit of fun.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23273bf37d2.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a presence in this thread that exhibits a profound contempt for rational thought; for science, and for sanity.
I can only hope that those persons seek professional help and restrain their compulsion to post here as it only serves to feed their psychosis.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Well when you consider Apollo astronauts were military, much of the support was military, and that 20 to 50% of NASA's budget comes from DoD. Guess who is influencing who?

Source please: NASA claims they report to the White House(more specifically, the Executive Branch), which is on the public record. And once again, military personnel working for NASA !=military agency. I like how you've moved the goalposts from "military agency" to "military influence".

I didnt move any goal posts, and evidence of that info is within these pages.
We had covered this quite awhile ago.

Originally posted by Smack

There is a presence in this thread that exhibits a profound contempt for rational thought; for science, and for sanity.
I can only hope that those persons seek professional help and restrain their compulsion to post here as it only serves to feed their psychosis.

You're right, I dont know how any rational person/scientist/engineer can believe that the US, with its history of lying and propaganda, landed persons on the moon safely with 1960's technology. It simply amazes me.



Where I disagree with you is that this thread has brought forth plenty of new information that paints a picture of lying and deception on the part of the Apollo propaganda program.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Well when you consider Apollo astronauts were military, much of the support was military, and that 20 to 50% of NASA's budget comes from DoD. Guess who is influencing who?

Source please: NASA claims they report to the White House(more specifically, the Executive Branch), which is on the public record. And once again, military personnel working for NASA !=military agency. I like how you've moved the goalposts from "military agency" to "military influence".

I didnt move any goal posts, and evidence of that info is within these pages.
We had covered this quite awhile ago.

Can you or anyone else please give me a rough page range? Twenty pages back? Fifty? A hundred? I'd really like to see for myself.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Smack

There is a presence in this thread that exhibits a profound contempt for rational thought; for science, and for sanity.
I can only hope that those persons seek professional help and restrain their compulsion to post here as it only serves to feed their psychosis.

You're right, I dont know how any rational person/scientist/engineer can believe that the US, with its history of lying and propaganda, landed persons on the moon safely with 1960's technology. It simply amazes me.

tYaki2ZvhSE

Where I disagree with you is that this thread has brought forth plenty of new information that paints a picture of lying and deception on the part of the Apollo propaganda program.

Oookay, what about the ham radios? Just about everyone in the world with a line-of-sight and the right equipment couldn't monitored the mission. And if it was faked, why didn't the Russians expose it? Quick summary of the relevant points, please. The ones based on facts, not speculation.

Originally posted by backinblack
Anyone that believes NASA is not wholly controlled by the military seriously needs to see a shrink..

Why would the military need/want to control NASA? The DoD already has there own space program, with their own budget. So there would be no point in the military controlling NASA. There projects and budget remaining mostly classified which works to there advantage.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
Anyone that believes NASA is not wholly controlled by the military seriously needs to see a shrink..

Why would the military need/want to control NASA? The DoD already has there own space program, with their own budget. So there would be no point in the military controlling NASA. There projects and budget remaining mostly classified which works to there advantage.

edit on 30-4-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)

NASA was a recruiting agency for private citizens.
The US needed new blood, ideas, talent, to put spy systems, and weapons in space.
DoD couldn't do that alone. NASA attracts new talent. Then the DoD exploits them.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Well when you consider Apollo astronauts were military, much of the support was military, and that 20 to 50% of NASA's budget comes from DoD. Guess who is influencing who?

Source please: NASA claims they report to the White House(more specifically, the Executive Branch), which is on the public record. And once again, military personnel working for NASA !=military agency. I like how you've moved the goalposts from "military agency" to "military influence".

I didnt move any goal posts, and evidence of that info is within these pages.
We had covered this quite awhile ago.

Can you or anyone else please give me a rough page range? Twenty pages back? Fifty? A hundred? I'd really like to see for myself.

You should pay closer attention next time.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Smack

There is a presence in this thread that exhibits a profound contempt for rational thought; for science, and for sanity.
I can only hope that those persons seek professional help and restrain their compulsion to post here as it only serves to feed their psychosis.

You're right, I dont know how any rational person/scientist/engineer can believe that the US, with its history of lying and propaganda, landed persons on the moon safely with 1960's technology. It simply amazes me.

tYaki2ZvhSE

Where I disagree with you is that this thread has brought forth plenty of new information that paints a picture of lying and deception on the part of the Apollo propaganda program.

Oookay, what about the ham radios? Just about everyone in the world with a line-of-sight and the right equipment couldn't monitored the mission. And if it was faked, why didn't the Russians expose it? Quick summary of the relevant points, please. The ones based on facts, not speculation.

edit on 2011/4/30 by 000063 because: Delinking vidya.

Watch Jarrah's videos on HAM radios and why the Soviets didnt expose the fraud.
Then you can get back to us with your analysis on his findings.

dbl post

Originally posted by 000063I honestly find it amazing that you think throwing random words around and going " Pull your head out of the sand, mate!" is a valid argumentative technique, in lieu of things like "facts" and "reason".

en.wikipedia.org...

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, /ˈnæsə/) is an executive branch agency of the United States government, responsible for the nation's civilian space program and aeronautics and aerospace research.

The "military-industrial" complex is so vaguely defined by you as to encompass effectively every gov't agency ever. NASA itself, while gov't run and employing, on occasion, military personnel, is not itself a military agency. Put down those goalposts.

Here are the goal posts. 1958 and 1961. The historical record confirms the existence of the military-industrial complex. The American's space effort was born out national defense some 50 years ago.

How did NASA pluck it's military trained astronauts out of the ocean? I didn't see any "civvies" out there in scuba gear

Time for some history...... and some "civilian spin"

The Birth of NASA: November 3, 1957–October 1, 1958
President Eisenhower spoke on television on November 7 as Sputnik I and Sputnik II orbited Earth. He displayed a missile nose cone recovered after a suborbital flight on a Jupiter-C rocket a few days before. Eisenhower's prepared statement focused on improving science and technology education, and he announced the appointment of Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as his Special Assistant for Science and Technology. Killian's appointment was interpreted in Congress as a determination to put a civilian spin on the growing debate over the future course of U.S. space exploration. Source history.nasa.gov...

On December 30, James Killian wrote a memorandum to Eisenhower in which he noted that many scientists held "deeply felt convictions" opposing Defense Department control of the space program because they felt it would limit space research strictly to military objectives and would tar all U.S. space activity as military in nature. He then offered some organizational alternatives for space that he believed would provide "the means for non-military basic space research while at the same time taking advantage of the immense resources of the military missile and recon satellite programs." Killian proposed a Defense Department operated "central space laboratory with a very broad charter," which he likened to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Source history.nasa.gov...

The National Aeronautics and Space Act (Pub.L. 85-568), the United States federal statute that created NASA, was signed into on July 29, 1958.

Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address delivered 17 January 1961
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Source: www.americanrhetoric.com...