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: 517
377
<< 514  515  516    518  519  520 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I have been known to be idiotic at times but i can assuredly say i have nothing to be ashamed of! Maybe you should attack the post and not the poster. What part of what i said upset you and can you state why it did?

Dont you or any other proponent of the official line think its slightly suspicious that anyone critical of the mission died? 10 astronauts within three years, 15% of all NASAs astronauts!

Even the safety inspector and his wife and daughter, hit by a train at a railway crossing? Then his critical report goes missing never to resurface.

Let me apologize if my critical thinking has upset any, it was not my purpose.




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 



Dont you or any other proponent of the official line think its slightly suspicious that anyone critical of the mission died? 10 astronauts within three years, 15% of all NASAs astronauts!


In order for that statement to be meaningful, you need to provide evidence that all the astronauts who died were critical of the mission. Not management, not a particular contractor or sub-system, but the mission. You would also need to show actuary statistics to indicate that a 15% loss in a cohort that tests and flies experimental aircraft under hazardous conditions is unusual. (NASA astronauts cannot be covered by ordinary insurance companies because the cohort is too small for actuaries to calculate meaningful tables. Hollywood stuntmen and deep sea divers have a similar problem. NASA has made special arrangements for the Astronaut Corps.) Incidentally, don't hoax propagandists frequently cite the extremely low rate of astronaut fatalities as evidence of a hoax?


Even the safety inspector and his wife and daughter, hit by a train at a railway crossing? Then his critical report goes missing never to resurface.


Ah, yes... the old "Assassination By Train Trick." Responding to the post that resulted in this riposte, the testimony was about safety in the wake of the Apollo 1 tragedy, and is recorded in The Congressional Record.

Edit to add: I do not endorse the ad hom you were responding to. The poster should indeed have given you a reasoned response.
edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



If the creator of this video series can't understand why we could go in the 60's, but not today, it really shows there ignorance on this subject matter. They might as well be arguing that the Concorde is a hoax, because we are unable to fly commercial passengers and supersonic speeds today.


Not a fitting analogy as we DO have supersonic planes today, far more advanced than the Concorde..

They are just not commercially viable but when has that ever stopped the military or NASA??



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I have been known to be idiotic at times but i can assuredly say i have nothing to be ashamed of! Maybe you should attack the post and not the poster. What part of what i said upset you and can you state why it did?

Dont you or any other proponent of the official line think its slightly suspicious that anyone critical of the mission died? 10 astronauts within three years, 15% of all NASAs astronauts!

Even the safety inspector and his wife and daughter, hit by a train at a railway crossing? Then his critical report goes missing never to resurface.

Let me apologize if my critical thinking has upset any, it was not my purpose.



To me your OP does not constitute 'critical' thinking, and let me withdraw my 'idiot' remark. It is obvious to me that when making remarks concerning the deaths of people involved in this field, whilst they may seem suspicious to some, this does not validate the insensitivity of your comment. Your opinion is your opinion, granted, but when I read comments like this it makes me angry. This debate may not be over, but the lives of these people, given with great cost, is no trivial matter.


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lestweforget
 




Edit to add: I do not endorse the ad hom you were responding to. The poster should indeed have given you a reasoned response.
edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


I am sorry but a reasoned response to lestweforget's comment is not required as far as I am concerned, in the spirit of this debate, I have learned a lot following, and briefly participating, and a comment like his/hers is a step over the line in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
double post



edit on 16-7-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Not a fitting analogy as we DO have supersonic planes today, far more advanced than the Concorde..


It is perfectly apt. We send probes to the Moon and other planets all the time; it's just not economical to send human beings, just as it's not economical to operate a supersonic passenger service.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I have been known to be idiotic at times but i can assuredly say i have nothing to be ashamed of! Maybe you should attack the post and not the poster. What part of what i said upset you and can you state why it did?

Dont you or any other proponent of the official line think its slightly suspicious that anyone critical of the mission died? 10 astronauts within three years, 15% of all NASAs astronauts!

Even the safety inspector and his wife and daughter, hit by a train at a railway crossing? Then his critical report goes missing never to resurface.

Let me apologize if my critical thinking has upset any, it was not my purpose.

That's not critical thinking, that's taking disparate facts, and implying a correlation and conclusion, without any evidence that such a connection between them exists.


Originally posted by backinblack
They are just not commercially viable but when has that ever stopped the military or NASA??
Just off the top of my head, I'd say...when they stopped the moon missions.

The stereotype of a runaway American blank-check military-industrial complex is precisely that, a stereotype.


Originally posted by WWu777

Originally posted by 000063

Twice now you have put weight on how much time has elapsed since the landing. I will reaffirm that I consider quantity a poor measure for drawing conclusions.
Really? The sheer amount of scientists who have looked at the moon landings and found no problems with them vastly outweighs the hoax believers, who tend to have no real scientific training at all. On that evidence alone, the HBs start lagging.


You are very naive. It's been explained to you many times, that a scientist cannot say anything they want without consequences. If they challenge authority or the official version of things (e.g. global warming or evolution) they will ruin their career.
Yes, like AE911Truth, which claims to have over 1500 people who don't believe in the official story of 911. Every single one of those people has had their careers rui-

No, wait, they're mostly just ignored. They make up less than 0.1% of the people in those professions worldwide.

And then there's the fact that someone among the millions of scientists would be able to get the news out anonymously. Do you know how many different ways of passing messages anonymously a person has at their disposal? Walk out of the house, check your mailbox, hide a message inside for your mailman. Hide something in the pocket of the sports coat you drop at the dry cleaners. Get on the bus, stealthily hand a message to the person to your right, or leave the message on your seat. Get to work, hand a message to the parking attendant, hidden in your dollar bills. Hide messages in the various paperwork at work, pass notes to a colleague in the hall, etc. Even assuming the men in black want to check each and every possible information vector without worrying about people seeing them, they've had to devote a man each to checking each of these methods. That's six or so guys, all before noon. That's over a dozen men each day to watch each of the 400,000 people directly involved in Apollo 11 to make sure they don't know or tell anything, much less their friends and family. You are looking at more than five million people to watch any possible suspects. There aren't that many people to work in the entire US gov't total, ever. And that's before you factor in the Internet, or 1969 scientists in non-Capitalist countries. Someone would've blown the whistle.


So they tow the party line. Everyone knows that. Duh.
Except that a good portion of science involves trying to prove someone else's theories wrong. There's no party line.


This is the real world, where power rules and determines censorship. Scientists depend on funding, and cannot say whatever they want without consequences. You are very naive if you don't understand that. See part 7 of the Apollo Zero film, where the narrator explains this.

www.youtube.com...
The government isn't the only people to fund scientists. Many of them are supported by private companies, or funds. And, again, 1969 scientists in non-capitalist countries. Before you claim Russia was able to suppress all the communist scientists, what about the ones in neutral countries? What about all the non-cap, non-com countries hostile to America who would be shouting this stuff from the rooftops? How many scientists, even anonymously, have presented evidence the landings were faked?


Ask Dean Radin. He will tell you about the many scientists who secretly confided in him that they believed in ESP but will not admit it publicly cause it will ruin their careers.

This is the real world dude.
Ironic that you say this while using "the lurkers support me in email" as actual evidence. If they can't come forward, there's no evidence they exist. If there's no evidence they exist, all you have is Radin's word they exist.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
why is apollo 10 never mentioned in these threads ? I have a thoery.



Apollo 10 has been mentioned on numerous occasions in this thread



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I've been reading 000063's latest posts and he keeps trying to pigeon-hole all moon landing arguments by skeptics into "anomalies". Discovering that killer solar flares and SPE's occurred during Apollo, when NASA empathically stated that none occurred, is not an anomaly, its out right lying on NASA's part.

Why would they lie? Because quite simply, a solar flare occurring during transit to the moon, past the magnet fields, would at best make the astronauts sick, at worst would kill them.
We have shown in this thread several have occurred.

But 000063 does not want to deal with subjects he doesn't understand because it might mean he is wrong.
So yeah, focus on your anomalies if it makes you feel safe.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Not a fitting analogy as we DO have supersonic planes today, far more advanced than the Concorde..


It is perfectly apt. We send probes to the Moon and other planets all the time; it's just not economical to send human beings, just as it's not economical to operate a supersonic passenger service.


We are discussing NASA and the Government/Military..

JRA used the analogy that we no longer have a supersonic commercial plane..

Are you saying we have NO supersonic planes, military or otherwise???

My point was it was a bad analogy because the Military/NASA are not concerned with commercial gain or efficiency..
Do you disagree ??



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Are you saying we have NO supersonic planes, military or otherwise???


Are you saying we have no spacecraft, civilian or military?


My point was it was a bad analogy because the Military/NASA are not concerned with commercial gain or efficiency..


But they are concerned about their budget! NASA has been forced to cancel the Constellation program due to budget cuts. The military has been forced to drop some of its favorite useless projects. Do you pay any attention at all to the news?


Do you disagree ??


Yes, and I honestly do not understand why you keep refusing to use reason.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why would they lie? Because quite simply, a solar flare occurring during transit to the moon, past the magnet fields, would at best make the astronauts sick, at worst would kill them.
We have shown in this thread several have occurred.


Really? What size solar flare would make them sick or kill them? What size flare do you claim to have found? Was it pointed in the right direction?



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
It's odd DJW, everyone carries on about how Government has cut all this spending and yet the deficit has skyrocketed..

I mean, how can that be?
Do you really believe what the Government tells you??

I guess you do...



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Yes, and I honestly do not understand why you keep refusing to use reason.


reason?
JRA said we are "unable" to fly supersonic commercial planes..

That's simply wrong..
They CHOOSE not to on financial grounds, big difference...

Do you see the reasoning??



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



It's odd DJW, everyone carries on about how Government has cut all this spending and yet the deficit has skyrocketed..

I mean, how can that be?


Sooo... if you have thousands of dollars in credit card debt and skip lunch in order to save money, but continue to buy expensive new things every day, your debt goes away? No, that's not how it works. I sincerely hope you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing, because if you don't understand how basic life skills like budgets and debt work, you won't stand a chance. (Unless you go into politics.)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



reason?
JRA said we are "unable" to fly supersonic commercial planes..

That's simply wrong..
They CHOOSE not to on financial grounds, big difference...

Do you see the reasoning??


They are unable to fly passengers at supersonic speeds because they have chosen to discontinue the aircraft that would make it possible, for economic reasons. Go back under your bridge.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Is the new idea amongst debunkers on this thread to simply derail the topic with BS??

I guess you've tried everything else already..


jra

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Not a fitting analogy as we DO have supersonic planes today, far more advanced than the Concorde..


I noticed I had made a small typo in the part you quoted. It should have read:


...because we are unable to fly commercial passengers at supersonic speeds today.


I was referring to supersonic commercial passenger planes specifically, not supersonic planes in general. The point I'm trying to make is that, just because we can't do something today, doesn't mean we couldn't have done it years ago.

We could make supersonic passenger planes today, but we don't. It most likely boils down to money. Not unlike future missions to the Moon. We can build spacecrafts to go there, but the costs of going there are too great.


JRA said we are "unable" to fly supersonic commercial planes..

That's simply wrong..
They CHOOSE not to on financial grounds, big difference...


Just like they chose not to continue the Apollo missions due to financial reasons.

Lets please not go off topic about an analogy. The point I was trying to make with it is rather clear, if you still have an issue with it, please feel free to U2U me about it.
edit on 18-7-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Go back under your bridge.


Really DJW, how vulgar of you..

I actually own a nice house because I know how to balance my budget so I see no reason for your childish talk..

It's really a sign of immaturity..



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Just like they chose not to continue the Apollo missions due to financial reasons.


And my point is the Government spends what it wants to spend..
The rising deficit tells me that..

I do NOT believe it is simply a money matter..




top topics



 
377
<< 514  515  516    518  519  520 >>

log in

join