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: 512
377
<< 509  510  511    513  514  515 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Well lets simplify this.
Can NASA put men on MARS or VENUS?
Both planets supposedly had probes sent to them as well.

What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?


Mars.. yes, given time and $$s. Venus...no, not with known technology.

What's taking so long is the lack of any public support to spend the $$s needed to accomplish the mission.


No the issue is not public support. It never has been.
And can you provide evidence that we have the technology to send men to Mars?




posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philthy53
reply to post by FoosM
 


What is it that that you apparently think doesn't exist?

That actual real proof that, YES, the Apollo moon landings really, and truely happened? That the Apollo moon landings are, in fact, an real historical fact?

There are mountians of documents, miles of video, thousands of pictures. ALL, without a doubt, are proof of Apollo.


Sorry but thats just pseudoscience:



Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence:
Pseudoscientists will grab volumes of evidence, with limited regard to the validity or quality of the evidence to help prove their theories. Science will only accept proven, quality, refutable evidence as opposed to quantities of evidence.




Philthy53:
What makes you think that any of Apollo is, or even could be faked? I've read this thread, there is nothing here that hasn't been debunked/explained for decades.

Phil




You havent read this thread then. Now I would be willing to bring up some unanswered issues but I have a feeling you will just *disappear*



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Well lets simplify this.
Can NASA put men on MARS or VENUS?
Both planets supposedly had probes sent to them as well.

What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?


Mars.. yes, given time and $$s. Venus...no, not with known technology.

What's taking so long is the lack of any public support to spend the $$s needed to accomplish the mission.


No the issue is not public support. It never has been.


so you are telling us that he public DOES suppport spending the required $$'s to send men to Mars?

got any evidence to support that proposition?


And can you provide evidence that we have the technology to send men to Mars?



He said "given time" - and the required $$'s being spent - which includes developing the technology from teh current base.

but we're used to you misquoting



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Philthy53
reply to post by FoosM
 


What is it that that you apparently think doesn't exist?

That actual real proof that, YES, the Apollo moon landings really, and truely happened? That the Apollo moon landings are, in fact, an real historical fact?

There are mountians of documents, miles of video, thousands of pictures. ALL, without a doubt, are proof of Apollo.


Sorry but thats just pseudoscience:



Grab-Bag Approach to Evidence:
Pseudoscientists will grab volumes of evidence, with limited regard to the validity or quality of the evidence to help prove their theories. Science will only accept proven, quality, refutable evidence as opposed to quantities of evidence.


Nope - grabing volumes of evidence may be one characteristic of pseudo science, but having volumes of evidence does not prove something to be pseudo science - "real" science also requires large quantities of evidence, and as you say it is the quality of the evidence that matters.

The quality of NASA's evidence is generally such that it is regarded as a world elading scientific establishment.

So when you ahve volumes of evidence, and the quality of that evidence is excellent, you have science.

You ahve prepeatedly stated that you think NASA fakes evidence, etc - which is a proveable proposition - and you've spent hundreds of messages on here consistently failing to prove it.

And this demonstration of your lack of logic is just another failure in your long and sad list of failures.







Philthy53:
What makes you think that any of Apollo is, or even could be faked? I've read this thread, there is nothing here that hasn't been debunked/explained for decades.

Phil




You havent read this thread then. Now I would be willing to bring up some unanswered issues but I have a feeling you will just *disappear*



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

No the issue is not public support. It never has been.


so you are telling us that he public DOES suppport spending the required $$'s to send men to Mars?

got any evidence to support that proposition?


Yes, and if you truly read this entire thread you would know what Im talking about.









And can you provide evidence that we have the technology to send men to Mars?


He said "given time" - and the required $$'s being spent - which includes developing the technology from teh current base.

but we're used to you misquoting


I know what he said, and I didnt misquote him, I asked him a question.
And I didnt realize he needed you to speak for him.
Or are you his sock puppet?


jra

posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You don't think being in zero atmosphere would allow the craft to move about more??


Obviously the lack of any air resistance on the Moon is a good thing, but I simply don't see how an atmosphere would help to keep it more steady. The atmosphere is dynamic with wind and turbulence, plus depending on ones speed, air resistance can become an issue too.


Originally posted by FoosM
What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?


Besides the need for money and political support, one big issue for going to Mars is time.Technically we can put people on Mars, but radiation becomes a serious issue due to the time it takes to travel to Mars and back. The Apollo missions were short, thus they weren't exposed to GCR's for very long. A mission to Mars would take over a year with current methods. To go to Mars, either better shielding would be required or a faster method of travel, to cut down the travel time, is needed.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Obviously the lack of any air resistance on the Moon is a good thing, but I simply don't see how an atmosphere would help to keep it more steady. The atmosphere is dynamic with wind and turbulence, plus depending on ones speed, air resistance can become an issue too.


I give up on this thread..
You guys simply have an agenda to disagree with everything anyone says that doesn't sit with you..

I thought you were reasonable and smart but I was wrong..

If you truly believe that atmosphere does NOT help stability then I suggest you study aerodynamics.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No the issue is not public support. It never has been.
And can you provide evidence that we have the technology to send men to Mars?


Yes, actually it is. NASA now faces the same type of problem it did in the early 70's. As was explained to you on pg502, no public support means no politician willing to spend the $$s needed to do the job. W/o those $$s the technical issues won't be investigated and resolved.

As for evidence ... rather that give you a long list that you can't understand, why don't you list your top 10 reasons it couldn't be done (given time and $$s) and I'll show you where you're wrong.

And then perhaps you'll explain how this strawman relates to Apollo or JW misbeliefs (though I have a good guess).
edit on 7/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: added link to pg502

edit on 7/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yes, and if you truly read this entire thread you would know what Im talking about.


Funny... as you know, I have read this entire thread and I don't recall you ever posting a source that would support that statement. Please link to the post where this statement is proven.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I give up on this thread..
You guys simply have an agenda to disagree with everything anyone says that doesn't sit with you..


Goodbye, then. Oh, what was your agenda?



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 



Obviously the lack of any air resistance on the Moon is a good thing, but I simply don't see how an atmosphere would help to keep it more steady. The atmosphere is dynamic with wind and turbulence, plus depending on ones speed, air resistance can become an issue too.


I give up on this thread..
You guys simply have an agenda to disagree with everything anyone says that doesn't sit with you..

I thought you were reasonable and smart but I was wrong..

If you truly believe that atmosphere does NOT help stability then I suggest you study aerodynamics.


I suggest you study basic physics more, like F=mA. For the question at hand, the stability of a LEM (or other such craft) while landing, isn't a question of aerodynamics. The speed through the atmosphere is slow and the resultant forces are small. The only time this isn't true is when the atmosphere is blowing strongly and then it really isn't aiding in "stability" is it ?

EDIT : If you'd link to some of the clips you saw of these "unstable" landers, we might be better able to resolve your question.
edit on 7/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 



Obviously the lack of any air resistance on the Moon is a good thing, but I simply don't see how an atmosphere would help to keep it more steady. The atmosphere is dynamic with wind and turbulence, plus depending on ones speed, air resistance can become an issue too.


I give up on this thread..
You guys simply have an agenda to disagree with everything anyone says that doesn't sit with you..

I thought you were reasonable and smart but I was wrong..

If you truly believe that atmosphere does NOT help stability then I suggest you study aerodynamics.


Aerodynamics is the study of the motion of air. Perhaps you heard that there is no air on the moon?

Aerodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with landing on the moon.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by prizim
Aerodynamics is the study of the motion of air. Perhaps you heard that there is no air on the moon?

Aerodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with landing on the moon.

Thank you.



To be fair to BiB, he was trying to infer that the LEM was somehow not believable because he thinks it was more "stable" in it's landings than some other unnamed prototype lander he's seen video of landing here on the Earth (? during some test flight ?). Why he thinks some prototype, with no doubt completely different physical properties and control mechanisms, who knows where in it's test and development cycle, should be comparable to LEM is as yet an unanswered question ... but this is an onion to be peeled one layer at a time.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
No the issue is not public support. It never has been.
And can you provide evidence that we have the technology to send men to Mars?


Yes, actually it is. NASA now faces the same type of problem it did in the early 70's.


Which was?





As was explained to you on pg502, no public support means no politician willing to spend the $$s needed to do the job. W/o those $$s the technical issues won't be investigated and resolved.


You still haven't proven that there is/was no public support.






As for evidence ... rather that give you a long list that you can't understand,



I'll call your bluff, you have no such list.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Funny... as you know, I have
read this entire thread and I don't recall you ever posting a source that would support that statement. Please link to the post where this statement is proven.


Its there, and I know your skill in finding topics in this thread. So look harder.
edit on 7-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its there, and I know your skill in finding topics in this thread. So look harder.


Excuse me, but you were the one who made the claim that there is proof of public support for a Mars mission on this thread. It is your responsibility to provide that proof or admit that you are wrong. Until you provide that proof, you lose by default. (Sheesh! Why do you expect everyone else to do your homework for you?)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its there, and I know your skill in finding topics in this thread. So look harder.


Excuse me, but you were the one who made the claim that there is proof of public support for a Mars mission on this thread. It is your responsibility to provide that proof or admit that you are wrong. Until you provide that proof, you lose by default. (Sheesh! Why do you expect everyone else to do your homework for you?)


Uh no, the person who claimed that poor public support is the reason why we dont have anymore manned missions to the moon or anywhere else needs to provide proof of that. I dont see you or the original poster offering any evidence. So by your standards, you guys lose by default.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMUh no, the person who claimed that poor public support is the reason why we dont have anymore manned missions to the moon or anywhere else needs to provide proof of that. I dont see you or the original poster offering any evidence. So by your standards, you guys lose by default.



You might want to read the article DJW posted back on page 502. You might also want to compare TV coverage and rating for Apollo 11 vs 17. They're a pretty fair indication of how much public interest there was in the latter days of Apollo. Without a lot of public support, no politician is going to stick his neck out to spend the kind of $$ that was being spent then ... or now ... in the face of other costs and a recession (then and now). This is fairly commonsense.

You want to see how much the public supports a manned Mars mission ? Try this poll. With the majority of people polled opposing the idea and only 29% in support (one has to wonder how that would change if they were given the costs and if the poll were done in todays economy).

As for what it would take to get men to Mars sometime in my lifetime, you might want to see the propsal here. I think they're a tad optimistic on the timline and costs but the basics are about right. The technology we have today, or likely to have in the near future, can (could) do the job. There are no insurmountable challenges, just ones that will take substantial time and $$ to overcome. What, in your engineering expertise, is wrong with their assestment ?

BTW are you going to explain how this mission to Mars relates, in any reasonable fashion, to the Apollo missions or JW's silliness ? Or is this yet another of your Gish Gallops ?



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosMUh no, the person who claimed that poor public support is the reason why we dont have anymore manned missions to the moon or anywhere else needs to provide proof of that. I dont see you or the original poster offering any evidence. So by your standards, you guys lose by default.



You might want to read the article DJW posted back on page 502. You might also want to compare TV coverage and rating for Apollo 11 vs 17. They're a pretty fair indication of how much public interest there was in the latter days of Apollo. Without a lot of public support, no politician is going to stick his neck out to spend the kind of $$ that was being spent then ... or now ... in the face of other costs and a recession (then and now). This is fairly commonsense.



Again, public support has nothing to do with Apollo's program being initiated or its ending. Thats what I said, I dont recall saying anything about HOW popular the program was, or HOW popular current programs are.

You want to bring up polls? Then bring them all up and make comparisons.


The most recent poll, conducted in May 2008, is the latest in a series of four polls commissioned by the Coalition for Space Exploration in an effort to better understand the extent of support and public attitudes toward America's space program. The first three polls were conducted in June 2005, March 2006 and August 2006.

"These latest results -- as well as poll data from the last several years -- reveal that even in the midst of varying world and national circumstances, Americans still strongly support space exploration, and are willing to support its funding at current levels or even slightly increased levels," said Mary Engola, chairwoman of the Coalition for Space Exploration's Public Affairs Team.


Not some arbitrary television ratings. Yes, I agree, the Apollo (TV) Program was not as popular as other TV programs. It wasnt that entertaining. Though NASA tried. Maybe they should have had Astronauts fighting Cosmonauts on the moon, that would have increased the ratings. Or put Transformers on the "dark side" of the moon, LOL. Put when it comes down to it...


Some conclude from these opinion polls that even though the American public might have been generally unsupportive of human lunar exploration, that Project Apollo—wrapped as it was in the bosom of American virtue, advocated by the most publicly wholesome of astronaut heroes, and hawked by everyone from journalists to Madison Avenue marketers—enjoyed consistent popularity. There is some evidence to suggest this, but it is, on the main, untrue. From the 1960s to near the present, using the polling data that exists, there is little evidence to support an expansive lunar exploration and colonization program. One must conclude from these results that the United States undertook and carried out Apollo not because the public clamored for it during the 1960s, but because it served other purposes. Furthermore, this polling data suggests that should the United States mount another human mission to the Moon in the future it will also be because the mission serves a larger political, economic, or national defense agenda.


So, just like unpopular wars, and other unpopular programs, the US government, when it wants to serve its own agenda or interests, will initiate or run programs regardless of popular support. And Apollo was no different.


launiusr.wordpress.com...
www.spaceref.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Goodbye, then. Oh, what was your agenda?


My agenda was just to have a reasonable debate,

unlike yourself and others who are so biased that ANY answer is considered a debunking and anything that can't be answered is simply ignored..

Enjoy your stars



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 509  510  511    513  514  515 >>

log in

join