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.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
Waht would constitute "real proof" for you,
Jarrah White takes a behind the scenes look at Transformers Dark of The Moon & Apollo 18, and gets an exclusive interview with Julie White (Judy Witwicky in Transformers).
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
no I didn't post a video of the engines being tested - I posted a video of the test site, and my post clearly said so.
no comment about the earlier tests of the Ascent engine then? the testing programme? the Apollo 5-10 flight tests??
Originally posted by FoosM
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!
They didnt test the landing of the LM.
They didnt drop test it to see if the craft would tip, if it would get damaged.
They didnt see if it would make a crater if they did a powered descent.
And they didnt test to see if the ascent stage would actually launch right after.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
The evidence that the engines actaully worked is the tests done in hte document I linked to, and the testing of hte systems from Apollo 5 to Apollo 10.
This is an action by relator Dr. Nira Schwartz ("Schwartz"), in the name of the United States Government (the "Government"), to recover penalties and damages arising from fraud on a vast scale perpetrated by defendants TRW, Inc. ("TRW") and Boeing North America, Inc. ("Boeing") in connection with the efforts of the U.S. Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command to develop a Ground Based Interceptor ("GBI") for possible deployment by the United States' National Missile Defense ("NMD") program. The claims asserted herein include counts under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3727 et seq. They also include a count by Schwartz as plaintiff under California state law for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
thats right, they didnt test the landing and take-off.
The two most fundamental aspects of a successful mission such as a lunar landing.
Yes they did. Apollo 11 was the test of landing and taking off from the Moon.
Furthermore, they didnt test the final configuration of the LM prior to Apollo 11!
Apollo's 9 and 10. They tested all the systems during those missions. Didn't you read my post?
They didnt test the landing of the LM.
Apollo 11 did. Plus there were the Surveyor landers that already demonstrated the ability to do soft landings on the Moon. Surveyor 6 even took off again, doing a little hop, landing 10 feet from its original spot.
Apollo's 9 and 10 both tested the Ascent stage jettison and APS. I mentioned that in my previous post which you apparently didn't read.
Stupidity. Bravery. Belief that it is not impossible. People try to do "impossible" things all the time. Sometimes they suceed, sometimes they fail.
Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, why would somebody attempt to do something that is impossible?
Well, I'm convinced by all that overwhelming evidence.
They tested the entire module. Not just "parts".
No.
That's not an actual assertion. Are you saying that it was impossible to land on the moon and get it off?
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
Because it was your point. If you need your opposition to support your point, you're doing something wrong.
Oh, and Jarrah has no rebuttal for the flag videos. Quelle surprise.
Yes he did. Why dont you link to his video?
That's not an answer. That's almost the precise opposite of an answer.
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.
Nope. You prove there was no one who saw or recorded the actual lightning. I actually found a photo of the strike with a few seconds of Googling, so proving there was no lightning is going to be rather difficult on your part.
And did anyone actually see the lightning strike?
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.
+++
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.
FoosM, several pages ago, I said that there was independent corroboration of NASA's results. You asked for a list. I said that it had been posted already, and pointed out that it would be dismissed simply on the basis that the independent organizations in question had contact with NASA, which they would have to do to corroborate NASA's results and data.
Originally posted by FoosM
Documents, from who, NASA? The companies working with NASA?
You believe everything you READ?
You dont think companies lie to get $$$ from the government?
Yes, just like saying people never try to do impossible things because they are impossible, or using the documents of the program you "know" is faked to "prove" that the program is faked. Which means that you already had an absolute conviction in place before you had the "evidence" to verify it.
Reading NASA documents about their own faked program is making circular arguments.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
The evidence that the engines actaully worked is the tests done in hte document I linked to, and the testing of hte systems from Apollo 5 to Apollo 10.
Documents, from who, NASA? The companies working with NASA?
You believe everything you READ?
You dont think companies lie to get $$$ from the government?
Reading NASA documents about their own faked program is making circular arguments.
No different than proving that existence of god by telling somebody to read the bible.
I use those documents to show inconsistencies, contradictions and lies.
Originally posted by 000063
Stupidity. Bravery. Belief that it is not impossible. People try to do "impossible" things all the time. Sometimes they suceed, sometimes they fail.
Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, why would somebody attempt to do something that is impossible?
Of course, you just said that the entire Soviet space program was a hoax as well. I mean, if it was impossible, then they weren't actually trying, right?
Well, I'm convinced by all that overwhelming evidence.
They tested the entire module. Not just "parts".
No.
/sarcasm
Are you saying that it was impossible to land on the moon and get it off?
Originally posted by FoosM
The moon is not alive!
Calling them faked without actually being able to prove that they were fake is called poisoning the well - a common technique for someone unable to actually prove his case who then tries to win over some audience by emotive means when facts fail.
Using NASA as the only source for much of the Apollo information is what makes it difficult..
But if a cadre of scientists, engineers, planners, politicians, realize something is not possible, they are not going to stake their reputation and do it.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
Using NASA as the only source for much of the Apollo information is what makes it difficult..
But whenever a source other than NASA is used to confirm what they say, they are alleged to be "in on it." Russian scientists who eavesdropped on the flights? Paid off with wheat. Indian or Japanese probes that show evidence of the equipment at the landing sites? Paid off, bought out or sabotaged by NASA. Moon Hoax believers poison every well in the entire universe of discourse in order to maintain their claims.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Calling them faked without actually being able to prove that they were fake is called poisoning the well - a common technique for someone unable to actually prove his case who then tries to win over some audience by emotive means when facts fail.
Is anything really a FACT with only ONE source ??
We know Governments and their agencies lie..
We even know secrecy rules are written into NASA law..
Using NASA as the only source for much of the Apollo information is what makes it difficult..
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by backinblack
So pointing out the logiccal errors in your argument amounts to nothing?
You might as well admit that your post which I replied to amounted ot nothing too - since it is what I was addressing.
Please at least try to make your sophistry entertaining since you can't make it relevant.