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: 502
377
<< 499  500  501    503  504  505 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Asked and answered multiple times. Read before you post.


Not really though some opinions have been expressed..




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Asked and answered multiple times. Read before you post.


Not really though some opinions have been expressed..


Exactly he can't answer it. So he claims the answers are out there, they are not and your right its all just opinions.

Why couldn't he answer my simple question?


jra

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 

When I say "manned landing" I am talking about the entire mission,
not just the actual landing..


Yeah I guess it's a context issue. I was trying to get into the specifics of landing between the two types of spacecrafts.


Originally posted by MasterAndrew
501 pages of talk. Answer me this, man walked on the moon decades ago, why have we not been back?


NASA has not had nearly the same level of funding that it had back during the Apollo program. NASA is limited as to what it can do and accomplish today. The budget gets stretched pretty thin, between all the programs they have going on these days, plus the Shuttle and ISS take up a lot of there annual budget. I also think the NASA of today is much more of a bureaucratic mess than it was 40 years ago. Things like that can stifle innovation and make things much more inefficient.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 



Answer me this, man walked on the moon decades ago, why have we not been back?


It is all a matter of public record, so I am astonished that you need to even ask.


On July 29, 1969, lobbyists for the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) eagerly approached Congress regarding their budget ambitions for the following year, hoping to capitalize upon their most recent accomplishment. Nine days before, humankind took its very first step upon the surface of another world. The thrilling voyage of Apollo 11 was hailed
by the New York Times as not just a historical triumph but as a “step in evolution.” The elation of the public was shared by those in the government as well who were thrilled by the fulfillment of the seemingly impossible goal laid out by President John F. Kennedy eight years prior. When the crew returned on July 24, President Richard M. Nixon hailed them calling the past days “the greatest week in the history of the world since Creation.”

So understandably, the NASA representatives on the 29th were dumbfounded by Capitol Hill’s earthbound reception. With the task complete, many wondered why NASA was asking for another $225 million for more Apollo missions when the nation was imperiled in a massive fiscal commitment to a souring war in Vietnam. In the days before, Vice President Agnew was quick to set a new goal for American space science declaring that Americans would walk on Mars before the end of the century. Surprisingly, one of NASA’s chief congressional allies, New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson, soberly retorted saying that from now on, NASA should take a “go-slow” approach.

And go-slow they did. In the subsequent years, the government’s enthusiastic support for the institution came to a screeching halt. In 1970 and 1971, NASA was buffeted by a series of gargantuan slashes to its budget.The 12.5% cut in 1970 led to the cancellation of what would have been Apollo 18, 19, and 20. By 1970, NASA’s continued survival seemed uncertain.

The Age of Aquarius

I suggest you click the above link and read the entire paper.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 


Do you know vaguely what page it was?

No mate, way too many pages to remember.
I do know I wrote a list of the main things that bothered me and I did see at least two other lists.
It's okay. I didn't expect you to remember which of the 500+ pages it was on.


BTW, the Russians tracking the missions really means nothing if you consider most people who say it's all a hoax usually argue that "MAN" didn't land on the moon, not equipment..
I'd say most agree they could land an unmanned craft..
Except for the part where the astronauts responded in real-time to scientist questions and requests, their transmissions were monitored in real time, the espionage the Reds were conducting, and they bought back more moon rock samples (which the Soviets verified) than any unmanned craft has ever managed.

Also, there was a lightning strike during Apollo 12, which the conspirators could not have anticipated. The astronauts actually responded, physically and verbally, to the lightning strike. If the entire mission was pre-recorded, it would not be possible. Unless 12 was the one mission they actually did do for real, yet managed to get results consistent with Apollo 11 and all subsequent moon missions. Including the unmanned ones, the Soviet ones, and ones that would not be conducted until the future by other nations with tech that wasn't even invented yet.

reply to post by FoosM
 


Except for the mountain of evidence-or, more accurately, six mountains--verified by scientists around the world, including the USSR, for over forty years, no, there's no evidence supporting Apollo was real.

Oh, except for all the other nations that have sent probes to the moon and found evidence consistent with NASAs.

reply to post by FoosM
 


For someone who claims that the videos have the evidence, you have consistency refused to provide so much as the specific videos we should be looking in.

Guess what. I looked at the videos. It ain't in there. If you want to prove me wrong, you're have to tell us which video, preferably with a timestamp. And if you try your usual "what should I be looking for?" tactic, it would mean you are accusing DJ of buck-passing without actually knowing what the buck is, which is odd because it's your buck. It also means you can't declare it irrelevant, because it was your question.

You still refuse to deliver your falsifiability conditions. I was wrong earlier; BiB did produce a list. That's more courage than most CTs have.
edit on 2011/6/26 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/26 by 000063 because: ++



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Also, there was a lightning strike during Apollo 12, which the conspirators could not have anticipated. The astronauts actually responded, physically and verbally, to the lightning strike.


Do you have a link to that info or video please.?


jra

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Do you have a link to that info or video please.?


Here is a link to the Apollo 12, flight journal. Go to "Day 1: Launch and Reaching Earth Orbit".



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra



The Americans have never showed the capabilities of return flight to Earth after landing on a foreign planet.
Their only evidence of this is Apollo. However, arguing Apollo as proof to prove Apollo could happen is circular reasoning.


Do you have any evidence that the LM was unable to land and return from the Moon?


Yes, the evidence is that they never tried it, and never showed the capability to pull it off.
If it was never tested, how could they know if it could work?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So they never tried it because they couldn't do it because it was impossible.

I'm noting a complete lack of any actual evidence in there.

They tested it, FoosM, as best as they could on Earth. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've actually posted evidence of it once or twice, in order to make some point or other.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 


So they never tried it because they couldn't do it because it was impossible.

I'm noting a complete lack of any actual evidence in there.



Exactly right, no evidence whatsoever that the LM could land, and re-launch, and dock with speeding ( 9000 kph ? ) CM as advertised. But why would they have to if they knew that they were going to fake it. So for the sake of the engineers and the press, they certain tested parts, and then claimed it was space worthy.


Originally posted by 000063
They tested it, FoosM, as best as they could on Earth. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've actually posted evidence of it once or twice, in order to make some point or other.


Oh yeah? They tested the LM landing and launching after landing? Please show the evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 



Supposedly it is the radiation in the Van Allen belt between here and the Moon.

In which a transit through by a human without sufficient shielding would result in a fatal dose of radiation to a human.

Supposedly the Apollo missions did not have this shielding.


These suppositions are wrong. Using data from Jarrah's source Kovalev, it has been shown several times in this thread that the radiation doses were within acceptable limits.


Well, there you go.

You learn something knew everyday.


That's a problem with this thread now too, it's so long it's difficult to find a topic even if it's been mentioned several times.

You regulars sure do have good stamina........

edit on 26/6/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: Afterthought



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Also, there was a lightning strike during Apollo 12, which the conspirators could not have anticipated. The astronauts actually responded, physically and verbally, to the lightning strike.


Do you have a link to that info or video please.?


Of course they could have anticipated it.
Because it was SIMULATED!
We covered this in this very thread already.


I first met Conrad at Carnarvon when he was Capcom for the Gemini III mission... He was to prove a Top Gun in space, turning out to be one of the outstanding astronauts in the Gemini, Apollo and Skylab programs. In fact he was the best astronaut in the Apollo simulators,

“You must remember we did not have a live television view of the launch. I was just looking at control screens which only had data and curves on them. The first thing I realised was we had a major electrical anomaly. But I did recognise a pattern. When we trained for this condition with our simulators it would always read zeros. It so happened that a year before I was monitoring an entry sequence test from the Kennedy Space Center, and the technicians inadvertently got the whole spacecraft being powered by only one battery. I remembered the random pattern that generated on the telemetry system, and for some reason just filed it off to the back of my mind. I did go in the office the next day to reconstruct what happened and found this obscure SCE (Signal Condition Equipment) switch. Few people knew it was there, or what it was for.



At Mission Control, John Aaron, a bright young flight controller in charge of the electrical system, had no telemetry data on his screen. Aaron had seen this problem before during simulator runs a year before and knew how to fix it. Confidently he said, "Flight, try SCE [Signal Condition Equipment] to Aux." This command was so obscure that neither the flight director, Capcom nor Pete Conrad knew what it meant. It was Alan Bean who knew where to find the switch, and moments later telemetry was back.








www.honeysucklecreek.net...
www.dickgordon.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 


So they never tried it because they couldn't do it because it was impossible.

I'm noting a complete lack of any actual evidence in there.

Exactly right, no evidence whatsoever that the LM could land, and re-launch, and dock with speeding ( 9000 kph ? ) CM as advertised. But why would they have to if they knew that they were going to fake it. So for the sake of the engineers and the press, they certain tested parts, and then claimed it was space worthy.
You're using circular logic. You're saying it was impossible to do, so they didn't do it.

They tested the entire module. Not just "parts".



Originally posted by 000063
They tested it, FoosM, as best as they could on Earth. In fact, I'm fairly certain you've actually posted evidence of it once or twice, in order to make some point or other.


Oh yeah? They tested the LM landing and launching after landing? Please show the evidence.
Did I actually say "landing and launching after landing"?

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Hey, look! They did everything except actually landing, including the docking. Guess I was wrong; it wasn't just on Earth at all, though there was testing down here as well.

Of course, you're just going to rely on baseless incredulity, or nitpick some minor detail you don't understand by questioning and not actually making any assertions, or you'll just ignore it.

Let's face it, FoosM. You have no idea what it would take to prove that the landings actually happened, yet you scoff at the official story.

Oh, and Jarrah has no rebuttal for the flag videos. Quelle surprise. There's no way for the planners to plan for the lightning strike, and even if they had the real astronaut on hand to be spliced in with a little improv scene, physical manipulation of the switches would be required. So, at the very least, there was someone in the rocket.

Of course, this still leaves the possibility that the astronauts launched and just orbited the earth for several days. That leads to the question of what sent the signal from the moon. Unless there was another rocket secretly launched at roughly the same time, or a secret remote LM built into the rocket built by thousands, it couldn't be done.

reply to post by FoosM
 


They simulated a lightning strike?

How does being able to recognize something that came up in training=simulation? That's the entire point of training!
edit on 2011/6/26 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 


So they never tried it because they couldn't do it because it was impossible.

I'm noting a complete lack of any actual evidence in there.

Exactly right, no evidence whatsoever that the LM could land, and re-launch, and dock with speeding ( 9000 kph ? ) CM as advertised. But why would they have to if they knew that they were going to fake it. So for the sake of the engineers and the press, they certain tested parts, and then claimed it was space worthy.
You're using circular logic. You're saying it was impossible to do, so they didn't do it.



Of course, why would somebody attempt to do something that is impossible?





They tested the entire module. Not just "parts".


No.




Hey, look! They did everything except actually landing, including the docking. Guess I was wrong; it wasn't just on Earth at all, though there was testing down here as well. Of course, you're just going to rely on baseless incredulity, or nitpick some minor detail you don't understand by questioning and not actually making any assertions, or you'll just ignore it.


Yes because landing on the moon and getting off it is a minor detail






Oh, and Jarrah has no rebuttal for the flag videos. Quelle surprise.



Yes he did. Why dont you link to his video?




There's no way for the planners to plan for the lightning strike, and even if they had the real astronaut on hand to be spliced in with a little improv scene, physical manipulation of the switches would be required. So, at the very least, there was someone in the rocket.


Maybe, maybe not. And did anyone actually see the lightning strike?
Anyway, this was all covered awhile ago in this thread.


jra

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, the evidence is that they never tried it, and never showed the capability to pull it off.
If it was never tested, how could they know if it could work?


But the LM was tested. Apollo 9 was the first test of the LM in LEO. They tested the LM/CSM docking and undocking, the Descent Propulsion System (DPS), Descent stage jettison, the Ascent Propulsion System (APS) and then finally the Ascent stage jettison.

Then there was Apollo 10 that tested the LM in Lunar orbit. It was essentially a practice run for Apollo 11. They tested all of procedures and components required for a Moon landing. Just not the landing itself.

And then there was Apollo 11 which was a test of everything with the landing.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
They tested all of procedures and components required for a Moon landing. Just not the landing itself.

And then there was Apollo 11 which was a test of everything with the landing.


thats right, they didnt test the landing and take-off.
The two most fundamental aspects of a successful mission such as a lunar landing.

Furthermore, they didnt test the final configuration of the LM prior to Apollo 11!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

edit on 27-6-2011 by FoosM because: dblpost



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra
They tested all of procedures and components required for a Moon landing. Just not the landing itself.

And then there was Apollo 11 which was a test of everything with the landing.


thats right, they didnt test the landing and take-off.
The two most fundamental aspects of a successful mission such as a lunar landing.


they certainly test fired the engines and calculated the weight they would have to lift - what about it is it yuo think consititutes evidence that it never went to teh mooon??

YT link to module engine test site - I haven't embedded the video because the comments accompanying it are probably more usedul than the video itself.


Furthermore, they didnt test the final configuration of the LM prior to Apollo 11!


so what changes had been made since the last test before 11? How were they expected to affect performance? What sort of testing do you think they should have done?

Here's the wiki history of LM test flights - what's the actual problem??
edit on 27-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

they certainly test fired the engines and calculated the weight they would have to lift - what about it is it yuo think consititutes evidence that it never went to teh mooon??

YT link to module engine test site - I haven't embedded the video because the comments accompanying it are probably more usedul than the video itself.


I see. Why dont you find some real proof the engines worked. Some actual footage.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Waht would constitute "real proof" for you, since you clearly are not in a mood to accept any documentation from NASA about, say, Apollo 10's mission where the LM descended towards the moon, and they separated the ascent module and fired it's engine to return to the main craft?

Edit: Tehre's a description of some of the testing that was done on the ascent engine here - NASA archives.....but I guess that's going to fall foul of your suspicions too??
edit on 27-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 499  500  501    503  504  505 >>

log in

join