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: 513
377
<< 510  511  512    514  515  516 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



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..


Examples, please.




posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Mate there's hundreds, are you blind??

The flag moving was "so called" debunked, how???

Did anyone prove EXACTLY why it moved or did they just think of another reason and say that's it??



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Mate there's hundreds, are you blind??


Most of them by the Hoax Propagandists, yet you hardly ever seem to notice them. Besides, I thought you said you were leaving this thread. This personal back and forth is extremely off topic. This will be my last comment on the issue of your "objectivity" in the open forum... but don't worry, there's always U2U.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Most of them by the Hoax Propagandists, yet you hardly ever seem to notice them. Besides, I thought you said you were leaving this thread. This personal back and forth is extremely off topic. This will be my last comment on the issue of your "objectivity" in the open forum... but don't worry, there's always U2U.


Ahh, I said I was leaving but YOU asked a question which I answered, which is only polite..

Then YOU asked another question..

But I guess you'll blame that on me and say it's debunked.


It was YOU that sent odd U2Us mate...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


Actually, this is what you said:



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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, could you at least acknowledge the distinctions I have tried to draw between engineering, scientific methodology and historical methodology?



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



This will be my last comment on the issue of your "objectivity" in the open forum.


So as usual you dodge the question like you say others do..

No problems mate, like I said, enjoy the stars..

Its the only thread you get many in..



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


But popularity is public support, or to be more precise, being unpopular leads to political opposition. And there's very few govt programs that don't have some form of opposition to them in Washington. When the public is apathetic, govt gets free rein but when a program gets unpopular then the spotlight gets turned on those trying to sell the program, to find a way to keep it sold.


Originally posted by FoosMYou want to bring up polls? Then bring them all up and make comparisons.


Note who paid for the poll you cite, when it was done and what it really indicates. CSE is an (admitted) advocacy group for the leading space industry corporations. I'd be very surprised if "we the public" ever read a poll done by them that wasn't favorable to their businesses. Second look when those polls where done. I wonder what the results might be today ? Lastly look what was actually said. People support the (then) level of funding or perhaps a slight bit more. NASA used (then, 2004-2006) about 0.63% of the federal budget (0.6% in 2008). Back in the heyday of the Moon Race it was over 4%. If the poll had asked "How much more ? Would you support an increase of 600% ?" I suspect John Q Public would have had a very different answer (even then). And an Apollo level of funding (at least) is what it will take to go to Mars.


Originally posted by FoosM 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.


For most people, you're exactly right, that's probably what it would take. The public is at best apathetic towards any scientific or research endevor unless it's going to benefit them ... tomorrow ! I've always found it odd that Jersey Shore is as popular as it is ... but it is so there you go.



Originally posted by FoosMPut 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.


So there was no public support for "an expansive lunar exploration and colonization program". That's pretty obvious. What people did like, or at least not oppose, was beating the Ruskies to the Moon. After that, people started asking "why are we spending this money when we've got Vietnam and a looming recession and ..." And the politicians listened. Look at NASA's funding in the late 60's and early 70's. Lack of popular support got the program killed. From your source ...

They [the polls] suggest, instead, that the political crisis that brought public support to the initial lunar landing decision was fleeting and within a short period the coalition that announced it had to reconsider their decision. It also suggests that the public was never enthusiastic about human lunar exploration, and especially about the costs associated with it. What enthusiasm it may have enjoyed waned over time, until by the end of the Apollo program in December 1972 one has the image of the program as something akin to a limping marathoner straining with every muscle to reach the finish line before collapsing.



So other than a nice trip down memory lane what does any of this have to do with JW's silliness.

EDIT : Or to get back on track, what does this have to do with why BiB (or anyone) thinks that we "can't" go back to the Moon and how the answer to that question pertains to what we did during the Apollo missions.
edit on 7/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: Getting back on track



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

So other than a nice trip down memory lane what does any of this have to do with JW's silliness.

EDIT : Or to get back on track, what does this have to do with why BiB (or anyone) thinks that we "can't" go back to the Moon and how the answer to that question pertains to what we did during the Apollo missions.


You seem intelligent enough to figure it out. But to summarize, public popularity does not have anything to do with whether or not the USGOV can start a program for a moon landing. Its a technical problem. Something beyond our science and capabilities.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

So other than a nice trip down memory lane what does any of this have to do with JW's silliness.

EDIT : Or to get back on track, what does this have to do with why BiB (or anyone) thinks that we "can't" go back to the Moon and how the answer to that question pertains to what we did during the Apollo missions.


You seem intelligent enough to figure it out. But to summarize, public popularity does not have anything to do with whether or not the USGOV can start a program for a moon landing. Its a technical problem. Something beyond our science and capabilities.



And what is that technical problem ? What is it that's so insurmountable than we can put people in spacecraft in LEO and land who knows what on the Moon itself but somehow just can't get people onto the Moon?

[insert dramatic pause while awaiting DJWs prediction to come true]



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   


Originally posted by MacTheKnife



And what is that technical problem ? What is it that's so insurmountable than we can put people in spacecraft in LEO and land who knows what on the Moon itself but somehow just can't get people onto the Moon?


Top issue is the radiation hazards.
Thats why we keep humans in LEO.



edit on 7-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Top issue is the radiation hazards.
Thats why we keep humans in LEO.


But according to Jarrah's source, E. E Kovalev, this should not be a problem.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Top issue is the radiation hazards.
Thats why we keep humans in LEO.


But according to Jarrah's source, E. E Kovalev, this should not be a problem.


If you are referring to the VABs well as everyone should know about now, they are not the worst danger when speaking of space radiation hazards. They are just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Top issue is the radiation hazards.
Thats why we keep humans in LEO.


But according to Jarrah's source, E. E Kovalev, this should not be a problem.


If you are referring to the VABs well as everyone should know about now, they are not the worst danger when speaking of space radiation hazards. They are just the tip of the iceberg.


Not according the JW vids I just saw. He sure spends a lot of time "proving" how deadly they are. But do tell, what's the rest of the iceberg ... as it pertains to Apollo duration missions ?


@ DJW : I note that in MoonFaker Part 6 (@ ~1:30) he uses Kovalev's unsheilded data (2.5 rem/hr) for the SAA to "show" that NASA is lying about the dosages received by astronauts in Skylab, the ISS and the SST. He even shows the paragraph saying (with no shielding) and in the central part of the SAA and still tries to pass the 2.5 number off as the dosage one would get inside the spacecraft mentioned and at all times passing through the SAA. In MoonFaker Part 5 he shows (see pic below) that shielding reduces dosage and yet ignores this in both his calculations (VAB transit and SAA transit). I can't decide if he's just stupid or deliberately being misleading. In reality I don't care which.


edit on 7/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added picture



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Omg. Alex Collier confirmed this in the 1990s! This is amazing!



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz

Omg. Alex Collier confirmed this in the 1990s! This is amazing!


Especially amazing is the gravity on the farside of the Moon. Same as Chicago. Sumthin to do with the sunlight.


One wonders what happens to the spaceship fleet during the ~ 2 weeks there is no sunshine.


I couldn't watch past that point. My laughing was waking the neighbors.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 



I can't decide if he's just stupid or deliberately being misleading. In reality I don't care which.


This is a false dichotomy. He is so stupid he doesn't realize that people will check his sources. The entire "Moonfaker" series is a pathetic hoax. Jarrah knows perfectly well that he needs to lie to prove his point.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
You're trying to obscure the fact that you refused to produce the video relating to the flag-waving under direct questioning, up until I pointed out the trap you had fallen into by doing so.


I may be mistaken, but I recall that I was having a debate about the flag issue with another poster.
Just because you want to jump into the conversation, Im not going to jump to your demands.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were a skeptic in search of the truth? Odd how you just ignore the points in question instead of explaining why they're irrelevant.


But at least now we know it isnt below you to lie, or set traps for people who are in search for the truth.
Yet said people refuse to produce "the truth", even when it would benefit their argument, because they're afraid of some sort of trap or critical hit to their argument.

I already mentioned my little trick with the Kovalev URL, which, incidentally, has the dosage Jarrah claims the astronauts got as the unshielded dosage. After that, you should be fact-checking every single link of mine, every single claim. Yet you just ignore or handwave several of the points I and others make, including said paper, up to the claim that a chart that plainly says "no shield" means something other than "no shield". You claim that you don't even need to prove the landings false, yet you claim in the very next metaphorical breath that "the anomalies" prove the landings false.

I mean, you even quote-mine your own sig.

Sophist.

Quote-mining sophist.


Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
 


All the countries that participated with the US in getting the men there, the UK, Spain, Australia, their testimony along with the Russians should be well enough. All the non NASA agencies, all the non US nationals who worked on Apollo, their testimony should also be more than enough, more than 40,000 people worked on the Apollo missions and they weren't all NASA people.


Listing participants is not "evidence".
You might as well ask the janitor at Mission Control what his proof is.
You mean the mission director of the moon missions wouldn't have evidence? Or the engineers who worked on it?

Feel free to produce someone who worked on the Apollo project with evidence that the missions were faked, or else admit to your double standard.


Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Well this is what you said..

The internet: unlimited knowledge available to people with limited intelligence


It does come across as saying anyone who questions NASA has limited intelligence..

Radio transmissions could easily have been relayed from the moon or space..
Like I said, no one has questioned sending equipment into space..
Except, as I pointed out, for the Apollo 12 launch, where the astronauts reacted verbally and physically to a lightning strike.

It sure is lucky that Apollo 12 was the one mission with actual astronauts.


edit on 2011/7/8 by 000063 because: -

edit on 2011/7/8 by 000063 because: -

edit on 2011/7/8 by 000063 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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
You're JAQing off.


You do realize that FoosM does precisely that all the time, right? I asked him for the CM hull thickness, and he hemmed and hawed and point-blank refused, trying to stall by talking about the LM. Just about every post of mine he's responded to recently he's selectively edited so he can respond to the points he feels he has an advantage on. You call the "debunkers" on what you see as problems much more often than you call out his intellectually-dishonest debating tactics.

reply to post by backinblack
 

Please stop with the Ad Hom, BiB.


Originally posted by MacTheKnife
For most people, you're exactly right, that's probably what it would take. The public is at best apathetic towards any scientific or research endevor unless it's going to benefit them ... tomorrow ! I've always found it odd that Jersey Shore is as popular as it is ... but it is so there you go.
It's mostly being watched as a comedy show. More people are laughing at than laughing with.


jra

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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


Or you could try to expand more on why you think the atmosphere helps with stability. Since you say you're here for a reasonable debate, then lets discuss and debate this!

But what I'd really like to do is go back to your original post where you said:


Originally posted by backinblack
I have seen recent clips of new generation landers and many are NOT very stable even given the incredible advances in computing power..


Can you post some links to these clips of these unstable landers so we can find out specifically what went wrong with them? Like, if it was indeed a stability issue, or simply a mechanical problem that went unnoticed until it was too late, etc.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
You do realize that FoosM does precisely that all the time, right? I asked him for the CM hull thickness, and he hemmed and hawed and point-blank refused, trying to stall by talking about the LM. Just about every post of mine he's responded to recently he's selectively edited so he can respond to the points he feels he has an advantage on. You call the "debunkers" on what you see as problems much more often than you call out his intellectually-dishonest debating tactics.


I stopped posting here because he posted pictures of the dead Apollo 1 astronauts still burned up in their space suits while accusing NASA of murder and never actually providing concrete proof.

It was extremely distasteful and pretty sick minded. The guy needs professional help.

I lurk here occasionally to see just how circular and uneducated some of the hoax logic is, but it gets too maddening to watch people unable to intellectually digest factual information no matter how much verified proof is provided. And every time you provide proof, he either ignores it or starts changing the subject. Mainly because he knows he can't backup his ridiculous accusations with factual, concrete proof.

Speculation does not equate to fact. And that seems to be the fundamental problem of understanding with the hoaxers.

As far as proof? I can provide the testimonies of peer-reviewed research papers provided by the several thousand of the geologists that have examined the lunar rocks.

What can the hoaxers provide? Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene & Jarrah White.

Jarrah was already proven to be a liar by JW very early on in this debate. Why people still believe him is beyond me. I still think his anonymous peer reviewer might be the most pathetic thing of all though. It really shows how disingenuous Mr. White is.

The conceit to think they(the hoaxers) know more than thousands of trained & credentialed scientists from all over the world is staggering. But on the internet, everyone is an expert!

Thanks for the legacy of ineptitude Mr. Kaysing.

I really thought this video kind of nailed things.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-7-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
377
<< 510  511  512    514  515  516 >>

log in

join