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: 46
377
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

So let me get this straight.... because you make absolutely no sense.

You state the source of the accusation comes from a Star magazine interview.
Yet you claim that the interview didnt happen?

I mean, what are you actually claiming? That the Grissom's dont believe that Gus was murdered?

Or is this another one of your typical Red Herrings


Red herring, heh. Nice try.

This is a direct quote from my post that you didn't understand:


Still haven't found the source for your "Clark MacDonald" story?

I'm not surprised. There is no mention of the incident anywhere except 2 or 3 Hoax sites. They all rely on this article from the ever-reliable Newsmax from 1999.


I was pointing out that, yet again, you took a youtube video as complete truth, and got burned.

You have no evidence for "Clark MacDonald", nor did you have the requisite intellectual curiosity to wonder if it was true and if any independent corroboration existed. You just regurgitated it, like you've done this whole thread.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   



I mean, what are you actually claiming? That the Grissom's dont believe that Gus was murdered?



Or is this another one of your typical Red Herrings


This was the video I was looking for thanks!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again, you rely solely on YouTube? If I were you, I'd do some more research into the provenance of that video clip...note the "FOX" logo, bottom right-hand corner?

That would seem to indicate it to be a segment from that infamous program aired, some time ago, by Fox. And, totally discredited as a collection of over-the-top "conspiracy" nonsense.

The interviews with the son and widow of Grissom indicate that AT ONE TIME they had those thoughts. What has it been, now, about a decade since they first issued these opinions?

How about contacting them, via the mailing address provided in "Tom's" post?

Particularly "compelling" was the overly-dramatic announcement by the narrator (Peter Coyote? Sounds like him...) that Mr. Baron's report "mysteriously disappeared"....(Cue the eerie music...woo, woo!)

Actually, NASA already was concerned with quality control at North American, and their escalating failures to meet deadlines, along with other indications of sloppy work.

THAT is the gist of Mr. Baron's concerns, and it was not "damning" evidence...it was well-known within the Agency. It could have been viewed as damaging, IF space-program opponents in Congress had gotten their hands on it, and used it as a political football to shut down what they viewed as a waste of money and resources, in an era of the Vietnam conflict, and social upheaval occurring within the US borders.

THAT is the history...not some overly-rated overly-dramatic "conspiracy" crap nonsense. Really, it is ONLY the people who don't bother to actually read the history who believe in this garbage. The ones who (before YouTube) were prone to paranoid fantasies, and "Gub'mint" control, and fringe UFO theories (yes, they are tangentially related) who would go out and buy the books, by the likes of Bill Kaysing, or Robert Rene'...not to mention that one-man load of warm steaming digested bovine food named Bart Sibel....NOW, of course, YT comes along...(Gee! And it's only been FIVE years! How time flies...)

There is MUCH in the background of Mr. Baron....I won't copy/paste all of it, but will provide the link.


Thomas Baron unwisely leaked his report to the media shortly after meeting with NAA officials, and this undoubtedly soured North American's relationship with him.


"NAA" is the acronym for 'North American Aviation', just so you know.


Baron was a rank-and-file employee. He did not necessarily have the perspective necessary to evaluate his charges in context of the entire spacecraft construction. Since some of his charges were valid, the unknowing media could plausibly assume that all were valid. And the resulting sensational coverage would have placed North American in unfavorable light that they did not necessarily deserve. Baron's conversations with Congress indicate that he was, to a certain extent, a disgruntled employee and not the best witness.


Now, back to that "mysteriously missing" 500-page report? (Woo, Woo...Doo-Doo, Doo-Doo...)

(we join the narrative already in progress...)

....NASA couldn't have destroyed it because NASA never had custody of it.


MY emphasis, as before. Along with these...!!!!!!!!!!


It went from Thomas Baron's hands to Congress's hands.


"It went from Thomas Baron's hands to Congress's hands."
(That was worth repeating...)

But wait, there's more!


North American never had custody of it either.


Wow! SO, it was ALREADY public...gee, just WHY would anyone wish to kill the horse after it left the barn?


But, what did Congress do with it? Does anyone who understand how Congress works need to ask???



With no one to claim it, and with its usefulness to Congress limited to supplying names of future witnesses, and with an abbreviated version already part of the record and acknowledged by North American, there simply was no compelling reason to keep it around. We may consider that the report was returned to Baron, or that it was simply destroyed. At present Congress cannot determine whether it still has custody of it.


There is a HECK of a lot more to read, on this and other topics. AND, not just from this source, via the link below.

Apollo "hoax" conspiracy whack-a-doodles don't want people to see this information, because it thoroughly trashes their "claims", lock, stock and barrel.

In fact, a great many people find it foolish to even attempt to educate these "hoax" believers, and most just dismiss their craziness out-of-hand.

HOWEVER, in this Internet age, this kind of disinformation, from the fringe, is NOT going to go away, and therefore MUST be addressed.

Because, apparently, the educational systems around the World have failed...

Linky Dinky is HERE for (what I will now call) the "Thomas Baron Affair".

FULL website link, with a whole bunch of other goodies, is HERE.


[edit on 11 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

This was the video I was looking for thanks!


Does it have the list of all the things you claim the Soviets were ahead of us in?

'cause were still waiting for you to give us what you read in those books.....



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM
Oh I love it,

You know how many questions and rebuttals Apollo propagandists have left unanswered on this thread? Its alot. How telling.

First of all, this thread is about Jarrah White, yet I see now true attempt to debunk his findings. Except making statements that his findings are bunk.
how lame. Sorry guys, calling someone a liar doesn't make him a liar. And believing that man landed on the moon... sounds so ridiculous, wont make it true either.

Face it guys, there is no hard evidence for Apollo... not even soft evidence


Why not make a list with all unanswered questions? Just start with 10 if it is too many.


Good idea, go make a list then answer them, Im doing plenty already.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im doing plenty already.


No, what you seem to be most proficient at is merely finding and posting the same old hackneyed silly nonsense from YouTube.

With your fingers in your ears, and eyes squeezed shut when actual science and real historical information is sent in your direction. As is t he stance assumed by most of the "hoax" proponents....

It occurs to me that you may be relatively new to this topic, and so it seems fresh and 'exciting'. As if you've had some sort of "Ah Ha!" experience, or something like that.

But, alas, you're a bit late to this game, and you still have some catching up to do. Because, you see, those "hoax" claims have all been addressed, countless times....but if the horse won't drink, then what's the point of leading him?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Good idea, go make a list then answer them, Im doing plenty already.


I can't find any


Maybe you can help out and give the top 5 most important unanswered questions?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Weedwacker:




Now, back to that "mysteriously missing" 500-page report? (Woo, Woo...Doo-Doo, Doo-Doo...)

(we join the narrative already in progress...)
....NASA couldn't have destroyed it because NASA never had custody of it.


MY emphasis, as before. Along with these...!!!!!!!!!!

It went from Thomas Baron's hands to Congress's hands.


"It went from Thomas Baron's hands to Congress's hands."
(That was worth repeating...)

But wait, there's more!

North American never had custody of it either.


Wow! SO, it was ALREADY public...gee, just WHY would anyone wish to kill the horse after it left the barn?

But, what did Congress do with it? Does anyone who understand how Congress works need to ask???


With no one to claim it, and with its usefulness to Congress limited to supplying names of future witnesses, and with an abbreviated version already part of the record and acknowledged by North American, there simply was no compelling reason to keep it around. We may consider that the report was returned to Baron, or that it was simply destroyed. At present Congress cannot determine whether it still has custody of it.



So bright eyes.
Where is the report?

At the end of the day, a man and his family dies mysteriously and his report is missing.
A report you acknowledge could have damaged the space program.
A very expensive space program.

And you want us to believe that this sounds normal to you?
Right....

And where did you get this information from?
www.clavius.org... ?



Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.


if so, how very BIAS of you.
We should just take info from Clavius over lets say Moonmovie or so, right?

NASA:


Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.


I would read that as there was no 500 page report. That he was only planning to work on one.

CLAVIUS:


Mr. Baron started working for NAA in September 1965 and was assigned as an inspector at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the launch site. In late 1966, Baron presented to NASA officials a 58-page report alleging improper action, discrepancies, failures, and other irregularities he had witnessed.

On his own, Mr. Baron began to assemble a more thorough report (about 500 pages long, according to Baron) in which he apparently hoped to document his charges of safety violations. After the Apollo 1 fire, he delivered his report to the Congressional committees investigating the incident. He also testified before a subcommittee headed by Rep. Olin Teague (D-TX).


So there was a 500 page report?
By the way, where is the 58 page report... or wait was it 55 pages?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM
Good idea, go make a list then answer them, Im doing plenty already.


I can't find any


Maybe you can help out and give the top 5 most important unanswered questions?


Oh really... you cant find any?
Let me throw you a bone then:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by dragnet53

This was the video I was looking for thanks!


Does it have the list of all the things you claim the Soviets were ahead of us in?

'cause were still waiting for you to give us what you read in those books.....


LOL you love to argue don't you? So it makes me think you never even passed american history.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



Im doing plenty already.


No, what you seem to be most proficient at is merely finding and posting the same old hackneyed silly nonsense from YouTube.

With your fingers in your ears, and eyes squeezed shut when actual science and real historical information is sent in your direction. As is t he stance assumed by most of the "hoax" proponents....

It occurs to me that you may be relatively new to this topic, and so it seems fresh and 'exciting'. As if you've had some sort of "Ah Ha!" experience, or something like that.

But, alas, you're a bit late to this game, and you still have some catching up to do. Because, you see, those "hoax" claims have all been addressed, countless times....but if the horse won't drink, then what's the point of leading him?



Seems like you just keep repeating the argument over and over with just the same old defense. But hey when the president gives money to go to the moon by 2010 and then leaves office. NASA decided to change its mind to go something else. then a new president comes in and they want more money to go to the moon.

well all I have to say is GO PRIVATE INDUSTRY!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Are you referring to your misinterpretation of the sheet of lunar dust that obscured the lunar surface during the descent? The dust radiated out in a sheet beneath the LM, making it difficult to see smaller rocks and crater, a potentially hazardous situation. (If you watch the 16mm film taken from the LM it actually creates the illusion the ship is moving backwards.)

www.history.nasa.gov...

Now why don't you explain how they managed to make the Saturn V and its payload disappear after they "faked" the launch?


jra

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
But hey when the president gives money to go to the moon by 2010 and then leaves office. NASA decided to change its mind to go something else. then a new president comes in and they want more money to go to the moon.


I think you're a little confused. There was never a plan to get to the Moon by 2010. The Constellation programs timeline was to get to the Moon by 2018 - 2020, if everything went well. And NASA never changed there mind. They are still currently working on the Constellation program, it's Obama that wants to cancel it and do something else.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Are you referring to your misinterpretation of the sheet of lunar dust that obscured the lunar surface during the descent? The dust radiated out in a sheet beneath the LM, making it difficult to see smaller rocks and crater, a potentially hazardous situation. (If you watch the 16mm film taken from the LM it actually creates the illusion the ship is moving backwards.)

www.history.nasa.gov...

Now why don't you explain how they managed to make the Saturn V and its payload disappear after they "faked" the launch?


1.
I dont know what your referring to or what argument is concerning the dust.
What exactly are you trying to say? Whats the topic?

2.
What happened to the payload and the Saturn V?
What?
Where did you think they went? Where did NASA say they went?
Do we have their remains somewhere in a museum or something?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:25 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]


John Lear claims this is a spaceship

www.thelivingmoon.com...

I DONT think I would trust ANYTHING John Lear says if this is the standard that he works to!!!!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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]


John Lear claims this is a spaceship

www.thelivingmoon.com...

I DONT think I would trust ANYTHING John Lear says if this is the standard that he works to!!!!


Well thats the issue with the Apollo record
The anomalies, lies and mysterious
have created basically two camps:

NASA is lying about Apollo because
a. They are hiding extraterrestrial evidence
b. We didnt go.

Under (a.) you have two more camps:
Those who believed Apollo went to the moon and found extraterrestrials
and those who dont believed we landed on the moon because of the ETs.

And there is the middle camp that believes we went to the moon but not with Apollo technology.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Well I would say we have debunked the so called anomolies most of which are because the people who believe them have no understanding of PHOTOGRAPHY for the no stars ,shadows, how they could take focused and well exposed pictures etc etc.

We have the LRO pictures now, Nasa documented and took pictures of the equipment on the Moon.
Now if the LRO pictures match the locations and layout claimed thats proof.

Look at this picture one half a still from Apollo DAC video as they left the Moon.The other half taken by the LRO.
This picture first posted by jra on here.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Now NONE of the craters or objects in the Apollo half can be seen or photographed from the Earth and the LRO SIDE matches even the track marks!

We went to the MOON , Mog from Zog did not have a base or spaceship parked (the livingmoon )
whats the problem


[edit on 12-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by FoosM
Good idea, go make a list then answer them, Im doing plenty already.


I can't find any


Maybe you can help out and give the top 5 most important unanswered questions?


Oh really... you cant find any?
Let me throw you a bone then:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So the questions is why there is no crater under the LM? Answer: because there was not enough thrust at low enough altitude to create a crater.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Let me throw you a bone then:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


??????????????

FoosM, are you SERIOUS???

Surely you are not saying THAT is your best shot....?

I'm going to give you a chance here - and let me say, I know this particular topic very well - it is one of the EASIEST to deBUNK.

Anyway, before I go through that one in GREAT detail with links, independent references and proof at every step, would you like to change your mind and maybe pick something a little more worthy? You make it WAY too easy. At least supply a decent challenge.

My challenge to YOU, is give it your BEST shot. Please answer this very simple question:

Which claim is the smoking gun, the most convincing 'proof' of a hoax, in your humble opinion?

I'll be delighted if the thrust output of the LM is it...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
By the way, it is really interesting to note that the Apollo deniers rarely seem to want to say which claim is the most convincing.

And the reasons for that are simple and obvious:

1. If they find their 'favorite' claim is debunked thoroughly, the implications are unpleasant - they have not only shown their knowledge of the topic is decidedly weak, they also have to admit that their best shot *failed*, which means that the rest... will likely fare *worse*.

2. The whole premise of the Apollo denial is 'scattergunning'. In other words, deniers must NOT pin their hopes on one item. Instead, they quickly jump from one to the other, so that they can pretend they didn't hear the debunking, and that there are "so many" other issues. Yet each one, when probed, simply reveals the same thing - their lack of understanding of the topic, and their intense desire to believe it was hoaxed.

And *of course* there will be lots of 'anomalies' that they don't understand:

- it was in SPACE, with all the 'weirdness' that entails - it's a little different to being on Earth...

- it was in 1/6 gravity, with not only the obvious 1/6 weight issue, but the completely different mass-to-weight ratio (they'll have to Google that..)

- it was in a vacuum, where things operate very differently to those in air (this will come back to bite the LM-thrust claim, by the way)

- it involved technology that they are completely unfamiliar with (like medium-format film cameras with reseau plates, field-sequential color video..)

- it involved concepts that they do not understand (like cislunar 'radiation', the ability of test pilots to navigate without using sophisticated GPS-type systems, or engineers who use slide rules and very basic calculators/computers)

- it involved machines that were superbly, functionally and minimally designed to do exactly the job they were designed for (like an 'ugly' LM that didn't have streamlining and fins because it was purely designed for a vacuum and 1/6 gravity)

- it involved a pioneering spirit and high degree of engineering brilliance and problem solving that is somewhat lost today (it often seems that all you need do is throw more computing power (and money) at problems)...

As witnessed by this thread, for those of us who have been around for a while, and perhaps (as in my case) have actually used some of this stuff (like those medium format cameras!) or worked in the science disciplines, and lived through those days, and taken the trouble to properly research the absolute WEALTH of information that is freely available about Apollo...

...the 'anomalies' simply do not exist.

So, deniers - Exuberant, FoosM, WWu777, dragnet53 and others, why don't you be brave - NAME YOUR BEST, MOST CONVINCING CLAIM and stop scattergunning.

By the way, I'm happy to tell you guys which claim I have found *most difficult* to deBUNK... but I'm afraid you won't like it...


PS... In my rant above, I didn't specifically refer to the lame "arguers-by-youtube", but I will now say this to them - grow some cohones and use your own words and knowledge (if any) for a change, and try citing some ACTUAL SOURCES other than the videos themselves...


[edit on 12-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join