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: 44
377
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
I was watching the documentary " In the Shadow of the moon" last night. Loved it btw, I watched it cause someone here mentioned it... Thnks.

anyway, on this doc. there is a contigency statement made by Nixon in case the apollo 11 mission failed. this is very substancial, it is another big proof that the apollo missions were real. why would the president of the U.S pre-record a statement in case of a mission failure if it was all being made in a studio??

Newspaper article

Nixon prepared for apollo disaster

The speech wrote by William Safire

There was a small clip of Nixon reading the speech on the documentary, but I couldnt find it anywhere else.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by hateeternal]


Interesting, but it also could mean

1. The President wasn't informed it was fake... (because he didnt NEED TO KNOW)
2. Kept the astronauts quiet, knowing they could be "offed" if they talked.
3. Could have meant that the Astros did go into LEO and was a "just incase" that they died up there... or died going up or going down.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
FoosM, thanks for that - now you are going down with Mr Aaron Ranen...

Let's assume that it really is Frank Byrne. I won't argue that. Yet.


"Frank has tossed back a few drinks prior to my arrival."

A slight understatement... The poor guy is absolutely plastered.

Now, I would suggest that you watch this video VERY CAREFULLY and see if you can spot what the editor has done. Either FoosM isn't smart enough to have noticed or he has decided, like Exuberant1, to DECEIVE and just hopes you won't notice the deceitful editing.

We do NOT get to hear the entire interview - unfortunately for the editor, he couldn't edit out the bit where Frank says "BUT IT WASN'T SIMULATED, IT WAS REAL LIVE DATA".

But HANG ON - that's NOT the damning part. Did you watch carefully?

1. WE DO NOT HEAR THE QUESTION FRANK WAS ASKED.

Think about that!!

2. HE DOESN'T EVEN MENTION APOLLO.

So how do we know that he wasn't asked about something entirely different? - all of the surrounding alcohol-fuelled discussion was about different missions.

Tell me, why do you think that editing took place, FoosM? Go on, have a wild stab. Tell us about why they edited the start and end of that snippet, and why we don't hear what he was asked.

Frankly, to take advantage of a person in that state of inebriation (most likely by using leading questions) and by DELIBERATELY EDITING OUT THE QUESTION that he was answering, and any context... Disgraceful. To what depths will these people descend????

Just more DECEIT.


By the way, posting that video has now revealed another deception by Exuberant1. I'll get back to that later when I summarise his work on this thread...


So thanks, FoosM, you've just dug the Apollo deniers into an even deeper pit.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey FoosM,

Check out what John Lear posted on OM forums earlier.




hanks for your contribution indicadubman.

All of the Apollo missions were a hoax. No Apollo mission went to the moon. Nor did they orbit it. One key is that the daytime color of the sky is yellow on the moon not black.

These little tidbits that show up anonymously are to keep the hoax alive.

If you still believe that the Apollo missions really happened ask yourself why these top 4 NASA officials resigned the day after Apollo 11 allegedly returned from the moon:

NASA resignations July 1969:

Bill Hess Chief NASA Scientist, Houston,
Apollo oral history project,12-04-2000 Anthony J. Calio page 12-8

Elbert King Geologist, Curator of Lunar Samples in Lunar Receiving Laboratory

P.R. Bell Chief of Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Donald Wise National Academy of Sciences
Space Science Board, NASA Manned Spaceflight Section Director

What was it the four officials found out that made them resign simultaneously?


See the post here


I wonder if his statement are accurate. If all these men did resign immediately after Apollo 11 came back, well that would be quite curious wouldn't it?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Originally posted by CHRLZ


A lot of folks - obviously including our intrepid apollo deniers! - haven't actually bothered to look at them. Yet if you are interested in Apollo, they are an absolute WEALTH of information. It may take a while to get up to speed with all the terminology but they are copiously annotated, and there are many links to related videos, films and imagery. It's ALL documented in excruciating detail, including a VERY useful timeline..



Then at 113:01:58 Schmitt says "Contact". Then there is a pause.

Clearly, the LM was moving downwards during all this time.

Then 5 seconds later, at 113:02:03 Schmitt reads out his checklist "Stop, push. Engine stop".

It's not particularly clear from the typed transcript whether the engine is shut down during the pause, or even as late as Schmitt reading out his checklist, but even so, very obviously the LM MUST have been some distance below the 2 metre claim. Indeed, if you watch the video and listen to the audio (linked below), it is almost certain that engine shutdown occurred as Schmitt calls "Contact".

It's also worth noting how excited Cernan was - shortly after touchdown he boasts to Schmitt:


113:02:23 Cernan: ...Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?


Read the transcript again - he's so excited that he doesn't realise that Schmitt NEVER said 'shut down'. He probably means Schmitt's call of "Contact", but that would make it way, way below 2 metres.

So, above 2 metres? Not a chance (and it would have survived that anyway). Cernan is an excitable sort of guy - go watch his interviews in "The Shadow of the Moon"! Stories always get more exciting as the years go by...

Now, really - a denier thinks this is a smoking gun??

----

So your position is that the engine was shut off below two meters.
anywhere from a midget to a tall man. Ok, so where is the photographic
evidence of crater, skid marks, or any regolith displacement due to the landing of a craft with a mass of around 10.000 pounds?



And do you agree or disagree with Cernan that the engine would have created a large crater if they engine was shut down anywhere under 3 meters?



And how do you explain Apollo 11 where clearly the engines were shut after touchdown. And clearly they announced seeing dust rise, I believe, around 40 feet off the ground due to their engine?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   


NASA resignations July 1969:

P.R. Bell Chief of Lunar Receiving Laboratory



More lies!!!!

As you can see HERE P. R. Bell was still working for Nasa in february 1970.


Title: Primordial radionuclide abundances, solar proton and cosmic ray effects and ages of Apollo 11 lunar samples by non-destructive gamma-ray spectrometry Authors: O'Kelley, G. D., Eldridge, J. S., Schonfeld, E., & Bell, P. R. Journal: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Supplement, Volume 1. Proceedings of the Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference held 5-8 January, 1970 in Houston, TX. Volume 2: Chemical and Isotope Analyses. Edited by A. A. Levinson. New York: Pergammon Press, 1970., p.1407


and I only investigated Dr. Bell. If you guys think you can just come here and state whatever you want in order to make everyone believe that the moon landing were a hoax, a lot of dumbasses will fall for your trickeries, but not everyone!!

And yet, some more proof:
Title:
Cosmogenic radionuclide concentrations and exposure ages of lunar samples from Apollo 12
Author(s): Bell, P. R.; Eldridge, J. S.; Okelley, G. D.; Schonfeld, E.
Abstract: Cosmogenic radionuclide concentration and exposure ages of Apollo 12 rock from Ocean of Storms
NASA Center: NASA (non Center Specific)
Publication Date: JAN 1, 1971


[edit on 10-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



It's time for you to use your imagination. Take five minutes of footage, prepare a storyboard and show, in detail, how each effect can be done. Remember, if you use multiple light sources you have to apply a technique which removes secondary shadows. If you use a single light source, you must remove the penumbra. Dust must settle instantly, so it must be filmed in a vacuum chamber or the dust clouds matted out... etc, etc. Then, draw up a shooting schedule.
------
Give me NASA's Apollo budget Ill do it no problem.


I'm going to ignore the fatuousness of the rest of your reply and throw this one right back at you. You don't need to actually film five minutes of SFX, I'm just asking you to stop and think about what you're saying for a moment. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what goes into film production if you think lengthy SFX segments are "easy." They require a great deal of thought. They involve difficult decisions. They require detailed logistics. All I'm asking is that you do a bit of research to see what kind of tools were available and how complicated all the logistics would be. But you refuse to because, obviously it's too hard! Yet another gauntlet too heavy for you to pick up.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
You have no idea what goes into film production if you think lengthy SFX segments are "easy."


mmm I guess poor old NASA just couldn't manage this. If they could put a 'man on the moon', don't you think they could pull off a film shoot like this in their sleep ? just saying.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


If they could easily do both things like you say, why would they do the movie instead of going to the moon.


If they couldn't possibly put a man on the moon, then they couldn't possibly fake it either...

Right??

[edit on 10-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



mmm I guess poor old NASA just couldn't manage this. If they could put a 'man on the moon', don't you think they could pull off a film shoot like this in their sleep ? just saying.


No, they could not pull all these effects off in their sleep. It would require just as much planning and execution as the actual mission, and require thousands of specialists who would be working under the understanding that they could never put their best work, which kept them out of the LA scene for years, in their resume. What planet do you live on, exactly?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by DJW001]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
If they could easily do both things like you say, why would they do the movie instead of going to the moon.


Cause it's a million times easier, and safer. If you've watched just one space shuttle / space station EVA, I can tell you, they take every foot they move more seriously than anything.

There is no way in hell they would have traversed 7kms, say 5 miles, from the 'lander'. but they apparently did.

I mean, what if that lunar buggy broke down ?

Why would they even take that risk of travelling 5 miles when today they freak out about moving a couple of feet ?

just saying.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Cause it's a million times easier, and safer. If you've watched just one space shuttle / space station EVA, I can tell you, they take every foot they move more seriously than anything.


"We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard...."
Sound familiar?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   


I mean, what if that lunar buggy broke down ?



Taken from the Apollo 17 Journal, If you bother to read a bit you might learn something...


"NASA had made a conservative assumption that, in the event of a Rover breakdown, the astronauts would be able to maintain an average walking speed of 2.7 km/hour, about half the running speeds achieved by several of the astronauts over distances of a hundred meters or so. Making allowances for reserves - but no allowance for the backup capacity provided by the Oxygen Purge System (OPS) - the assumption of a 2.7 km/hr return speed meant that, at this farthest station, Cernan and Schmitt had to leave no later than about three and a half hours into the EVA. During our review of this summary, Jack Schmitt said, "I remember arguing with them about how conservative the walkback assumptions were. Particularly where your landmarks are clear or you have Rover tracks to follow. You could almost certainly get into a fairly efficient motion that would have been better than 2.7 (kph). I can't document any estimates that we ever made, but we always thought that it was pretty conservative. On the other hand, the reason I didn't argue about it very much was that there was going to be plenty of things to do. You didn't need to go very far (away from the LM) in order to reach all the interesting places that we wanted to get to in the time that we had available."

history.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hateeternal
 


Bloody Bull^%#$ to quote an Australian expression.

Have you watched just one eva from the shuttle / space station.

Have you become bored within the the first 3 hours or so when nothing happens ?

Then when something does happen, it's like ... " I'll move over here 1 foot.. ok ? yes ok ? '

That's it .. there's no .. let's spin the wheels and ride 5 miles and fall down, and nearly break our suits apart, play golf. and drop the experiments, and then screw them up, ala apollo 16 ...

Watching the videos of Apollo 16 is like watching laurel and hardy .. They are forever dropping supposedly really expensive experiments and rendering them uselsess.

come on ..

ps. and how did they keep that high gain antenna ( the big parabolic dish ) on the rover pointed in the right direction all the time


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by hateeternal
 


Bloody Bull^%#$ to quote an Australian expression.

Have you watched just one eva from the shuttle / space station.

Have you become bored within the the first 3 hours or so when nothing happens ?

Then when something does happen, it's like ... " I'll move over here 1 foot.. ok ? yes ok ? '

That's it .. there's no .. let's spin the wheels and ride 5 miles and fall down, and nearly break our suits apart, play golf. and drop the experiments, and then screw them up, ala apollo 16 ...

Watching the videos of Apollo 16 is like watching laurel and hardy .. They are forever dropping supposedly really expensive experiments and rendering them uselsess.

come on ..

ps. and how did they keep that high gain antenna ( the big parabolic dish ) on the rover pointed in the right direction all the time


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ppk55]



Was the orientation of the experiment (i.e. horizontal/vertical) important? Difficult? Driving on slopes left the "down-slope" crew member feeling precarious. The lunar communications relay unit (LCRU), a high gain antenna mounted on the LRV, had to be oriented at each station for television transmission to Earth. TV was cut off while moving, but voice communication was maintained over the low gain antenna. The low gain antenna for A-17 had to be aimed at Earth due to the location of this landing site. This was done by "dialing in" a reciprocal heading for antenna aiming from that being driven. The other sights were more sub-Earth and could use a vertically pointing antenna. Orientation of the high gain antenna was accomplished with an optical sighting device, but this presented a very dim image of Earth which was hampered by the helmet visor. The use of signal strength, as indicated on the AGC control meter, was an acceptable back-up alignment technique.


ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

5 secs on google.... next.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Look Tom, obviously your in a little way over your head.


Heh, me?

You still haven't answered the Ham radio question, nor given an even remotely plausible explanation of how they fake the lunar excursions.

You don't know the length of the Lunar Surface Sensing Probe.

You don't know what the purpose of the "contact light" was or how it worked.

etc. etc.



You dont know what Im talking about? Then what are you talking about?
Why are you making posts and cant follow up on questions on it? Especially when your trying to respond to my earlier post. Oh I get it, you dont even understand what your posting.


I understand the issues quite well. Anyone reading this thread (an intrepid endeavor) will see you have answered NO questions other than with irrelevant youtube videos. Is it really that hard to form you own thoughts, research them, and then write them out?


All your doing is going to other forums looking for help and pasting the info here.


BWHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!

That is the most stunningly self-unaware comment I've ever seen. If you didn't have youtube, you wouldn't have anything to post. You are unable to come up with any information on your own, it's all "argument by youtube".

I'm just proving that without posting youtube videos, you are competely ignorant of Apollo.


This is a sad as your whole attempt to hide the fact that you were moving the goal posts of your von Braun questions. And using that as a way not to acknowledge the evidence I presented. Your so busted Lawrence Taylor is jealous.


We all await your link to my post where I first mentioned the "targeting" of civilians, before you did, of course.

You just made the claim, now put up or retract the claim.



And who were those lazy bums looking for that Frank Byrne quote where he said the tracking of Apollo could have been simulated? I mean, I gave you the doggone documentary where it came from. And you dont even bother watching it? We make things way to easy for you!


Read this carefully and try to understand. The quote from Byrne did not come from your video, it was taken from another source and place there. When you are asked for a source, you give the original. If you don't know the original, you should think about not using it, otherwise it may come back to bite you in the ass just like this one did.







Wait... wait a minute... did somebody just spill the beans and pointed out that Frank Byrne died in 2000 after his interview?



October 22, 2000
FRANCIS "FRANK" BYRNE, 66, 120 Chipola Road, Cocoa Beach, died Friday, Oct. 20. Mr. Smith was director of electronic engineering at the Kennedy Space Center. He was a member of Indian River Amateur Radio Club. He was Lutheran. He was an Army veteran. Survivors...


Hmmm.... very interesting. Did he reveal too much?


Dancing on a grave. What a rotten, vile POS you are.

You really want to think about retracting that.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hey FoosM,

Check out what John Lear posted on OM forums earlier.




hanks for your contribution indicadubman.

All of the Apollo missions were a hoax. No Apollo mission went to the moon. Nor did they orbit it. One key is that the daytime color of the sky is yellow on the moon not black.

These little tidbits that show up anonymously are to keep the hoax alive.

If you still believe that the Apollo missions really happened ask yourself why these top 4 NASA officials resigned the day after Apollo 11 allegedly returned from the moon:

NASA resignations July 1969:

Bill Hess Chief NASA Scientist, Houston,
Apollo oral history project,12-04-2000 Anthony J. Calio page 12-8

Elbert King Geologist, Curator of Lunar Samples in Lunar Receiving Laboratory

P.R. Bell Chief of Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Donald Wise National Academy of Sciences
Space Science Board, NASA Manned Spaceflight Section Director

What was it the four officials found out that made them resign simultaneously?


See the post here


I wonder if his statement are accurate. If all these men did resign immediately after Apollo 11 came back, well that would be quite curious wouldn't it?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


Yes I heard about that. Its very suspicious.
Including the number of questionable deaths involved in the NASA program.
Not to forget this threat:



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Hmm..... Im really curious to see who did resign back in and around '69.



George Mueller (born July 16, 1918) was hailed as one of NASA's "most brilliant and fearless managers". He was Associate Administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight from September 1963 until December 1969. He was instrumental in the "All-up" philosophy of testing the Saturn V booster that accelerated a floundering Apollo program and ensured it would succeed in landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth by the end of 1969. Mueller (he pronounced it Miller) also played a key part in the design of Skylab and championed the space shuttle's development.

Mueller resigned from NASA on November 10, 1969 effective from December 10. Rumours had been circulating for a while that he wanted to return to private industry. The New York Times stated that 'informed sources' "alleged clashes with (Administrator) Thomas Paine over space priorities for '70s and disputes with subordinates; he has twice been passed over for deputy admr post".[19].
In an interview Mueller gives different reasons for leaving, "One is that the decision had been made to terminate the Apollo program, and that was a good time then to leave before, and let someone else take over for the next phase. From a practical point of view, I needed to go make some money so I could keep my family going. It was costly for us to join the Apollo program. My salary was half what I was making in industry when I went there, and it was just a strain to keep the family going and work going at the same time. So I went back to industry."

Decision to terminate the Apollo program?? When back in '69?



“Brian O'Leary was selected by NASA in August 1967 as part of Group 6. He reported to the Johnson Space Center and was here only briefly, from September 1967 to April 1968, when he left for personal reasons. Brian O'Leary was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and had a Ph.D. in Astronomy from University of California-Berkeley. He left NASA before an official biography was put together for his concurrence and signature on a NASA Privacy Act Form giving NASA permission to make his biography available to the public. Therefore, a biography was never posted online for him.”


Jarrah used him, as I recall in one of his videos.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Principal NASA Officials Time-line

1965
Hugh L. Dryden - Deputy Administrator of NASA from I October 1958 to his death on 2 December 1965.

1966
1967
1968
Apollo 7, launched on October 11, 1968,

Robert C. Seamans, Jr. - with NASA from 1960 to 1968, first as Associate Administrator (I September 1960-2 December 1965) and then, succeeding Hugh Dryden, as Deputy Administrator from 21 December 1965 to his resignation on 5 January 1968.

James E. Webb - Administrator of NASA, 14 February 1961-7 October 1968

Apollo 8, launched on December 21, 1968

1969
Apollo 9, launched on March 3, 1969

Harold B. Finger - Served as Associate Administrator for Organization and Management, 15 March 1967-1 May 1969

Apollo 10, launched on May 18, 1969
Apollo 11, launched on July 16, 1969
Apollo 12, launched on Nov 14, 1969

Samuel C. Phillips - Detailed to NASA Headquarters in January 1964 as Deputy Director of the Apollo Program. Appointed Apollo Program Director in October 1964 and served through August 1969. Commander, Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization, September 1969-April 1972; Director, National Security Agency, April 1972-August 1973

George E. Mueller - Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, NASA, from I September 1963 to 10 December 1969

1970
Apollo 13, launched on April 11, 1970

Thomas O. Paine - Appointed NASA Deputy Administrator by President Johnson on 31 January 1968. Became Acting Administrator following resignation of James Webb on 7 October 1968. Nominated by President Nixon to become NASA Administrator on 5 March 1969 and confirmed by Senate fifteen days later. Resigned on 15 October 1970 to return to GE


1971
Apollo 14, launched on Jan 31, 1971
Apollo 15, launched on Jul 26, 1971

1972
Apollo 16, launched on April 16, 1972

Wernher von Braun - Transferred to NASA in 1960 and was Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center from July 1960 to February 1970, when he was appointed NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning. Resigned in July 1972

Apollo 17, launched on December 7, 1972

1973
DeMarquis Wyatt - specializing in aerodynamic and thermodynamic studies of advanced aircraft and propulsion systems. Served at NASA Headquarters from October 1958 to his retirement in July 1973

Homer E. Newell - Served as NASA Associate Administrator from 1 October 1967 to his retirement at the end of 1973

Robert R. Gilruth - Director, Manned Spacecraft Center, November 1961 -January 1972, when he was named to the newly created position of NASA Director of Key Personnel Development. Retired in December 1973

1974
1975
Willis H. Shapley - Deputy Chief of the Military Division from 1961 to 1965. In each position he was charged with reviewing research and development programs of DOD and the programs of NACA/NASA, and he was instrumental m drafting the original version of the 1958 Space Act. Served as NASA Deputy Associate Administrator from I September 1965 to his retirement in August 1975.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dragnet53
 

Have you ever heard of Apollo 1?
I guess you haven't studied much of anything but youtube videos.


[edit on 5/8/2010 by Phage]


I was looking for something on Apollo I. But I couldn't find anything except this.
This is very odd and I also believe the Grisom family in this. Yet, Another conspiracy for a different thread!

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

this was on mainstream news as well:
partners.nytimes.com...

JW has some interesting points, but some just can't see it.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by dragnet53]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join