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: 503
377
<< 500  501  502    504  505  506 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


Waht would constitute "real proof" for you,


Didnt you just post a video about the LM's engines being tested?
I dont recall seeing the engines being actually tested in that video.
Maybe I missed it.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
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??
edit on 27-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   



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).



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.


So where is the evidence that the engines actually worked?
I thought it was a public program, they wouldn't hide those tests would they?



no comment about the earlier tests of the Ascent engine then? the testing programme? the Apollo 5-10 flight tests??


Ive made my statements regarding their tests.
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.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
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.

what's the problem with them? Are you saying they never happened just because there's no video currently available?

I dont' know whether they did those other tests or not - why would it be a problem if "all" they did was test the systems "on the ground" as it were? Apollo 10, for example, tested teh seperation of the ascent Stage from the lander. tests of the landing gear were done on earth - Apollo 11 was teh 1st "flight test" of it - and how could it be otherwise??

Here's the report on the performance of the apollo 11 landing gear which notes on its introduction that a lot of testing and analysis was done in the design of the gear - essentially it was designed and analysed without being able to be flight tested


jra

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

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.


They didnt drop test it to see if the craft would tip, if it would get damaged.


They did drop tests of the landing gear. I recall seeing the videos in this thread at one point. I don't get how it would tip over though. It has four legs, it would have to land on quite a steep slope to tip over.


They didnt see if it would make a crater if they did a powered descent.


I believe the surveyor landers already showed that would not happen.


And they didnt test to see if the ascent stage would actually launch right after.


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.
edit on 28-6-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

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?


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.

www.fas.org...

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.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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.


So you want to claim that they couldnt test Apollo without people?







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 final configuration of the LM. Did 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.



Oh wow, impressive. A hop.
From what I recalled when Surveyor landed it also bounced.
Do you recall any LM's bouncing?




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.


Ive read it all and I know all about it. Its apples and oranges.
edit on 28-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, why would somebody attempt to do something that is impossible?
Stupidity. Bravery. Belief that it is not impossible. People try to do "impossible" things all the time. Sometimes they suceed, sometimes they fail.

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?




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


No.
Well, I'm convinced by all that overwhelming evidence.

/sarcasm





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
That's not an actual assertion. Are you saying that it was impossible to land on the moon and get it off?






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

Yes he did. Why dont you link to his video?
Because it was your point. If you need your opposition to support your point, you're doing something wrong.

When asked about some point, you have repeatedly directed the debunkers to look through Jarrah's videos to find the answer. Yet you are not willing to do the same to support your own point. That seems hypocritical of you.




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.
That's not an answer. That's almost the precise opposite of an answer.


And did anyone actually see the lightning strike?
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.

Also, you deleted some stuff from my post again.


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.


reply to post by FoosM
 


I note that, once again, you deleted troublesome bits of the post you quoted. Specifically, the part where you're challenged to state what the big difference was between the last test before 11 and 11 itself.


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?
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.

Thanks for proving me right.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question of why the USSR would be satisfied with some wheat, when they had the entire Cold War to win. Proof of a moon landing = blackmail material forever.

Or what would need to be explained before you could believe the Moon Landings were real.


Reading NASA documents about their own faked program is making circular arguments.
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.

Whoops.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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?


Of course they do sometimes. And plenty of times they do not.

Got any evidence that these documents are falsified in any way?



Reading NASA documents about their own faked program is making circular arguments.


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.




No different than proving that existence of god by telling somebody to read the bible.


It is completely different - and your inability to recognise that it is, or, more likely, your sophism in brining it up further indicates your inability to actually prove your case and identifies your appeal to emotion instead of evidence.


I use those documents to show inconsistencies, contradictions and lies.


so far the only such problems you are identifying are your own!



edit on 28-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course, why would somebody attempt to do something that is impossible?
Stupidity. Bravery. Belief that it is not impossible. People try to do "impossible" things all the time. Sometimes they suceed, sometimes they fail.


Look, if you want to go build a rocket and land on the moon, that would probably be stupid and brave on your part. 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. Government shouldn't be in the business of using tax money on impossible projects. However, governments are known for lying and will lie about impossible things. Like Bin Laden hiding in a cave with a dialysis machine.





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?



I JUST said that? Where did i JUST say that.










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


No.
Well, I'm convinced by all that overwhelming evidence.

/sarcasm


You see what I mean. No evidence.




Are you saying that it was impossible to land on the moon and get it off?



The moon is not alive!



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The moon is not alive!


LOL,

Mazel tov!!



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
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..



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


On the other hand, given sufficient motivation, governments are capable of doing things that are extremely difficult. What you are arguing is that the Panama Canal does not exist, because it is impossible and governments lie.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

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.



The Russians supposedly followed the missions and heard conversations..
They didn't really prove anything about manned landings..
The Indians and Japanese took low resolution pics that again really proved nothing,,

I have seen little or no evidence outside of NASA that "MAN" landed on the moon..
That's fairly obvious as they were the only ones involved but it also creates it's own problems with proof..



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

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 ??


Sure - things are facts or not regardless of the number of sources.

the number, and credibility, of sources is what people use to determine whether they believe those sources or not.

Foo requires someone other than NASA to confirm NASA's info, despite teh fact that there was no-one other than NASA in the game at the time. He has poisoned the well by saying he doesn't believe NASA, and is asking for somethign that doesn't exist.


We know Governments and their agencies lie..


We know they tell the truth too.


We even know secrecy rules are written into NASA law..


There are secrecy loaws covering all sorts of things.


Using NASA as the only source for much of the Apollo information is what makes it difficult..


There are many sources of information other than NASA (in an official sense) - the people who say they went to the Moon, the people from various companies who worked on all sorts of projects - IIRC something like 1/2 or a millin people worked on some part of the Apollo project didn't they?

However these have all been pre-emptively writen off as "connected with NASA" and therefore unreliable.

So Foosm wants someone who has complete info on Apollo, and has no connection with NASA at all. Adn he thinks that is a reasonable thing to ask for - as apparently do you?

He's totally poisend the well - as have you (and indeed most conspiratorial believers) with comments like "The Government lies".

And what other sources would you expect there to be?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


A long post of nothing..

I merely pointed out FACTS..

Back to the backslapping star feast.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

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.


What logical errors?
500 pages in and it appears most don't even understand the topic..
THAT'S what amazes me..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 500  501  502    504  505  506 >>

log in

join