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: 518
377
<< 515  516  517    519  520  521 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

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..


So if it's not "simply" a money matter, what is it then ? And what makes you think this (reason unstated) is the real reason ?

Seems to me that the accepted reason is the true reason if only because it makes so much sense. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo got funded due to the cold war climate, a sense of national pride and ... quite frankly ... because JFK had charisma. There were lots of people on both sides of the issue, for and against, spending the $$ to do the task but after that task was done ... what was the sales pitch to the people who vote to keep the politicians in office ? That we "need" to keep spending the $$s to beat the Ruskies ? Nope, won't fly, BTDT. That we need to keep spending the $$s to advance human presence in space ? Nope, most people really don't care about that. Manned space missions just weren't a hot button issue to advance your political career in a time when the country was much more concerned about Vietnam, LBJs "Great Society" programs (and their cost), young people not following in their parents footsteps (hippies and communes, oh my), black people demanding to be treated like people, womens liberation and a recession that seemed to be signalling that boomtimes of the 50's and 60's were coming to an end. And spending $$ to put people in space, at least at the level that had been done in the heydey of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo might just be a ticket out of office (for anyone not in FL or TX). So you tell me, which way are most of the politcians going to go ?




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

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.


Oh right, Apollo was a commercial space program!
How silly of me, I completely forgot the astronauts were civilians and could testify that they did what they did
because they were independent to government. They had actually BOUGHT tickets to the moon! I mean, how can you beat that as evidence. Speaking of buying tickets to the moon:




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I've been reading 000063's latest posts and he keeps trying to pigeon-hole all moon landing arguments by skeptics into "anomalies".
1: I'm in this thread, address your statements about my posts to me. I have been quite clear .on calling you, personally, out on your sophistry, and have had my knuckled rapped by the mods when I got off-topic.


Also, do you actually read the entirety of the posts you respond to, or do you just quote-mine them and add "
"? Because you seem to have a habit of quoting the first sentence or two and ignoring the entire rest of the post, especially if it contains a detailed rebuttal of you, or challenge for you to prove something.
And now you've come up with this brand new tactic of talking about my posts to everyone else instead of responding to me and the facts I've been posting.

2. I do mean your sophistry, personally.

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow. What does that mean, complete theory?

You want me to offer a theory?

The anomalies and contradictions found in the evidence that NASA has provided to claim they conducted a manned moon landing with the Apollo program points to the moon landing as being a hoax.

Thats my theory.

Littered throughout this thread, you will find such contradictions and anomalies posted by myself and others. Some have been satisfyingly explained while others have not.
Emphasis mine.


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.
Source?

EDIT: Oh, wait, found it. Everyone, please be sure to read the following responses in that link, not just FoosM's post. very illuminating. I especially like the part where people ask for FoosM's numerical definition of a "major" SPE, and he says he's using NASA's definition, as used in a statement where NASA says there weren't SPEs. He doesn't know what they were defining as "major", yet insists, as he is insisting now, that they are lying about it and "major"
SPEs occurred. When cornered, he starts asking the debunkers what NASA defines as a major SPE. In other words, he starts asking for evidence he claims to already have.

Beautiful.


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.
Then you won't be afraid to show us one more time, will you? And that the radiation exposure received through the shielding would be of a sickening or fatal dosage?


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.
I'm sorry, I'm not the one who claimed that the hygene arrangements on Apollo 11 were fake because I wouldn't want to poop in a plastic bag, or because bacon and eggs weren't an appropriate pre-launch meal. I will readily admit that I don't know something, like when I asked for some radiation numbers a while back, and you linked it them, and I admitted it was Greek to me, I didn't understand it, and I wasn't going to form an opinion one way or another. You, by contrast, have claimed to have been able to tell, without calculations, that the radiation exposure in the CM was fatal, after refusing to produce the hull thickness for several pages.
edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: -

edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: ++

edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: +++

edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?
Do you really believe what the Government tells you??

I guess you do...

Money lost > money saved.

If I owe a loan shark $150, and I pay off $50 of my debt for the sake of my kneecaps, I still owe him $100.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Speaking of buying tickets to the moon:


I think JW is being too ambitious. He needs to focus. I think if he'd just concentrate on getting himself to the Moon, he'd only need 75 M$. And I'll opine he'd get more people contributing this way too !



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

118:39:41 Cernan: Okay. (Pause) Hey, Jack, you notice there's none of those guys up there holding those hoses as we go around the LM?
118:39:52 Schmitt: What do you mean? I saw one just a minute ago.






Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted 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.
Then you won't be afraid to show us one more time, will you? And that the radiation exposure received through the shielding would be of a sickening or fatal dosage?



Now wait a minute. Why should I bother?
If I show it to you, you are probably just going to say,
"I dont understand it" or "no comment, lets move on to ambiguous anomalies and the rest of the old stuff from Kaysing and Rene so I can use prepared counter arguments..."

So if I present the evidence, what will you do with it?




edit on 18-7-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted 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?
Do you really believe what the Government tells you??

I guess you do...



I take it YOU have access to multi billion/trillion dollar loans with NO INTEREST sign me up then



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


One sign of a severe personality disorder is an inability to recognize or understand a joke. Just sayin'.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So if I present the evidence, what will you do with it?


Other than be awed by your research skills? He might let one of the others participating on this thread give it another "once over."



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

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..


doesn't that strike you as being a little simplistic??


I think you should at least consider that the Govt spends what it needs to spend, in its own estimation, to get re-elected.

And if it thinks the public will vote against it for spending on something then it does it's damndest not to spend on that something.


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


Which is fair enough, but needs just a little more backup than "Government spends what it needs to spend" if you're trying to why.
edit on 18-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


One sign of a severe personality disorder is an inability to recognize or understand a joke. Just sayin'.


Ha ha veddy funny...

Dude, one joke is a joke, but many jokes about simulations and fakery that were made by these astronots is a sure sign of [wink wink, nudge nudge] them telling us this whole Apollo was a joke.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So if I present the evidence, what will you do with it?


Other than be awed by your research skills? He might let one of the others participating on this thread give it another "once over."


Once over again ? It was already beaten to death on page 181. Let's see if I can summarize the relevant parts ...

The claim is that "major" solar flares occured but "alarms bells were not rung", presumably since NASA knew that the astronauts, being in LEO, weren't in any real danger. But the longitude of these flares were such that no "bells" needed to be "rung".


Originally posted by Phage
Now, since you've been doing your homework (but not very well) here's a prize, the actual catalog of solar flares (M and X). As you found out, there were 12 X-class flares in November of 1969. 7 of them occurred during Apollo 12, the strongest being X5 (3 of them). Based on that 21.3% figure we saw earlier that means that 1 or 2 might have produced a proton event but...referring back to that article, the solar longitude of the flare is very important. Flares which occur between 30ºW and 90ºW are three times as likely to produce a proton event as those between 30ºE and 90ºE. Out of those 7 flares only one occurred in that western range (just barely).


Moreover the particle densities were measured and found to be insignificant (wrt to crew health). Again from page 181 and another of Phages posts ...



And to complete the summary, this post ...


Originally posted by CHRLZ
In fact, let's look at a REAL graph (well, 2-in-1 actually):



Let me put that in SIMPLE terms. IF any Apollo astronauts had been on the lunar surface, and unable to get to cover in time, it is possible that the August 1972 solar event may have been fatal.

That was the only time during that ENTIRE period that there was an event that would have likely caused an aborted mission.

But as we know, there was no Apollo mission at that time.


[original source citations available on page 181]



edit on 18/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: Added CHRLZ input



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted 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.
Then you won't be afraid to show us one more time, will you? And that the radiation exposure received through the shielding would be of a sickening or fatal dosage?



Now wait a minute. Why should I bother?
If I show it to you, you are probably just going to say,
"I dont understand it" or "no comment, lets move on to ambiguous anomalies and the rest of the old stuff from Kaysing and Rene so I can use prepared counter arguments..."
I'm doing all this off the cuff, and even if I don't understand the data, there are plenty of debunkers smart enough to discuss it.

One time you bought this up, and you got trounced and started scrabbling for your usual video-spamming subject change within a few pages, when you claimed that "major SREs" happened, and claimed to be using NASA's definition, yet you were unable to say what that definition was. I linked it in my post above, but deary me, most of that post seems to have vanished when you quoted it. Let's just link to it again, shall we?

I may not know a Rem from Jem and the Holograms, but I know enough to tell when someone doesn't have evidence of their claim and refuses to admit it. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something. It's when someone doesn't know something but can't say so that's wrong.


So if I present the evidence, what will you do with it?
Discuss it if I understand it, admit I don't and let others discuss it if I don't.

(EDIT: MacTheKnife seems to have saved me the trouble. How nice.)

Remember, you have to show that "killer solar flares and SPE's occurred". For this, you need 4 things.

1. What flares/SREs occurred.
2. What the lethal exposure would be (including timeframe).
3. What exposure the astronauts received from the flares/SREs in 1 (incl. shielding).
4. Whether 3 was equal or greater than 2.

There is no way you could've reached this conclusion, by yourself, without this evidence. You tried this back around 182, as I linked before, and you could never define what a "major" event was. Any questions along the lines of "What would you define as-" are attempts by you to shift the burden of proof, proof you claim to already have.
edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/7/18 by 000063 because: ++



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Which is fair enough, but needs just a little more backup than "Government spends what it needs to spend" if you're trying to why.


I'd actually say "wants" to spend more than "needs" to spend..

Backup??
Did you see the bailouts??
The "VAST MAJORITY" of taxpayers were against the $Trillions the Governments gave to their banker mates..

Do I really need to say more??



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I'd actually say "wants" to spend more than "needs" to spend..

Backup??
Did you see the bailouts??
The "VAST MAJORITY" of taxpayers were against the $Trillions the Governments gave to their banker mates..

Do I really need to say more??


Yes, I think you need to say more if you're trying to relate this to the topic of this thread or even one tangentially related. How does Gov't choice to spend (or not) $$ on going back the Moon now indicate that Apollo (then) was a hoax (or not) ? How is Gov'ts choice to spend $$s on program X, Y or Z indicative of this, one way or the other ?


As for the VAST MAJORITY that WERE against the bailouts ... says who ? I think there's a majority now against any more such "bailouts" (or even now are against what was done then with 20/20 hindsight) but back then I'd have said there was lackluster support. More specifically there was a strong desire for the Gov't to "do something" (almost always the wrong starting point). From a 2008 LA TImes article ...

Asked whether the government should use taxpayer dollars to rescue financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy, 55% of the poll's respondents said they did not believe the government should be responsible for funding a bailout plan.

However, opinions about the bailout plan appear to be malleable, perhaps because voters are still learning about the proposal. When some of those who opposed a bailout were interviewed, several said they would reluctantly accept a bailout plan if Congress decided one was necessary.

"It sticks in my craw," said Camille Woyak, 82, a retired office worker in Appleton, Wis., who said she opposed a bailout. "There should be some other solution. But I think the taxpayers are going to have to cover it. I don't know any other way out.

"I lived through the Depression as a little girl," she added. "I don't want to go through that again."

Other polls have found that voters want the government to do something to prevent a financial collapse, even though they don't like the idea of footing the bill. A poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, for example, found that 57% of respondents think the government is doing the right thing by intervening to stabilize the economy.

The contrast between the Times/Bloomberg poll and the Pew survey probably reflects the different wording of their questions.

The Times/Bloomberg poll asked respondents whether they believed it was "the government's responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers' dollars." A majority said no.

The Pew poll, by contrast, asked respondents if "investing billions to try to keep financial institutions and markets secure" was the right thing to do. A majority said yes.

"These were two different questions," explained Susan Pinkus, director of the Times Poll. "One asked whether the bailout was the right thing to do. The other asked if it was the government's responsibility."

articles.latimes.com...

And ...

Three polls, all at the same time, give three wildly contradictory pictures of the American public. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll says the public opposes taxpayer bailout of Wall Street by 55 percent to 31 percent, a result cited on CNN by David Gergen the night the poll was published. He used the poll to illustrate his point that "the American people" were angry with the thought of using government funds to help Wall Street firms. That theme seemed to dominate several of the networks' coverage of the issue, though it was contradicted by a Pew Research poll, published the same day as the Times/Bloomberg poll. Pew found that "Most Approve of Wall Street Bailout" (by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent). Either a 24-point margin against the bailout, or a 27-point margin in favor. Could there be any greater demonstration of how confusing the media polls are to anyone who genuinely cares about what the public thinks? But then there is the Washington Post/ABC poll published the very same day as the other two, showing a very different public, one that finds "Tepid Public Approval for Fed Action," by a statistically insignificant difference of 44 percent to 42 percent.
www.pollster.com...
edit on 19/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 


I'm just answering to the off topic subjects your mates bring up..

To be honest, saying we haven't been back due to financial issues is BS IMO..

It's not a relevant argument in debunking the "so called" hoax, unless of course you can prove otherwise..



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Could it be that there aren't any military applications in going to the moon?

They once thought the moon could be used as some sort of base and that could be why the Establishment was willing to throw money at the project for possible military advantages.

Related link:
USAF's Little X-37B Space Shuttle: More Military Than NASA's
www.fastcompany.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Which is fair enough, but needs just a little more backup than "Government spends what it needs to spend" if you're trying to why.


I'd actually say "wants" to spend more than "needs" to spend..


I assumed you weren't being particularly exact in your language, so I sort of understood or assumed that.



Backup??
Did you see the bailouts??
The "VAST MAJORITY" of taxpayers were against the $Trillions the Governments gave to their banker mates..

Do I really need to say more??


Some evidence would be useful - as would some sort of rational connection between why you think the bailouts are relevant to not financing on-going space exploration.

I presume it is something along the lines of "there's money available when there has to be"? Or if not then please elaborate.

If it is, then I'd like to know why do you think a "nice to have" such as a space programme deserves the sort of extraordinary efforts that went into preserving the banking system, which seems a bit more like a "must have" - ie total failure of which would pauperise the whole country whereas absence of a space programme has no such massive deleterious effects.

I'd be interested in how you connect these 2, because they dont' seem like they bear much relationship to me.

Thanks in advance.

edit on 19-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Dawn of a new conspiracy


is NASA setting us up for their next hoax?




The $466 million mission will continue for the next three weeks where it will capture more images, search for moons around the asteroid and investigate its physical properties, including its gravitational pull.


So... landing on a fast spinning asteroid in deep space is more feasible and beneficial than
returning to our moon?


Former President George Bush put forward a plan to return humans to the moon by 2020 however this was later put on hold when Obama announced that the next target would be an asteroid instead.



Umm.... OK.


With NASA at a crossroads as the space shuttles retire, the space agency is facing the steep challenge of developing a slew of new technologies for a new phase in exploration: trips to an asteroid and Mars.
For 30 years, NASA astronauts have worked in low-Earth orbit, flying on the space shuttles and building the International Space Station. Now that the station is complete and the shuttle program is winding down, the United States is focusing on sending astronauts farther out in the solar system than ever before.

NASA's next big goals for human spaceflight, as articulated by President Barack Obama, are visiting an asteroid by the year 2025 and landing on Mars in the 2030s.

"We're not going to get to an asteroid in 2025 without some of the key building blocks that NASA wants to start on today," NASA's chief technologist Bobby Braun told reporters during a June 27 teleconference.

Braun stressed the need to find ways to protect people in the microgravity and radiation environment of space for long periods, as well as to improve propulsion, navigation and communication abilities.


Gravity and Radiation issues? That doesn't make any sense. Just add a few more inches of aluminum in the hull and astronauts should be fine. LOL.



And how were they able to find and identify that piece of rock as being from that particular asteroid?
And how do you orbit an asteroid?


Vesta is thought to be the source of a large number of meteorites that fall to Earth. Vesta and its new NASA neighbor, Dawn, are currently approximately 117 million miles (188 million kilometers) away from Earth. The Dawn team will begin gathering science data in August. Observations will provide unprecedented data to help scientists understand the earliest chapter of our solar system. The data also will help pave the way for future human space missions.

After traveling nearly four years and 1.7 billion miles (2.8 billion kilometers), Dawn also accomplished the largest propulsive acceleration of any spacecraft, with a change in velocity of more than 4.2 miles per second (6.7 kilometers per second), due to its ion engines. The engines expel ions to create thrust and provide higher spacecraft speeds than any other technology currently available.

"Dawn slipped gently into orbit with the same grace it has displayed during its years of ion thrusting through interplanetary space," said Marc Rayman, Dawn chief engineer and mission manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "It is fantastically exciting that we will begin providing humankind its first detailed views of one of the last unexplored worlds in the inner solar system."

Although orbit capture is complete, the approach phase will continue for about three weeks. During approach, the Dawn team will continue a search for possible moons around the asteroid; obtain more images for navigation; observe Vesta's physical properties; and obtain calibration data.





www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.digitaljournal.com...
dawn.jpl.nasa.gov...


jra

posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So... landing on a fast spinning asteroid in deep space is more feasible and beneficial than
returning to our moon?


Landing?! What are you talking about? DAWN is only orbiting Vesta. After one year, it will move on to Ceres. I think you need to read up more on the DAWN mission.


NASA's next big goals for human spaceflight, as articulated by President Barack Obama, are visiting an asteroid by the year 2025 and landing on Mars in the 2030s.


The asteroids would be NEO's (Near Earth Asteroids) and not ones out in the asteroid belt where Vesta is.


Gravity and Radiation issues? That doesn't make any sense. Just add a few more inches of aluminum in the hull and astronauts should be fine. LOL.


Did you catch the key words in the text you quoted? Let me highlight it for you.


Braun stressed the need to find ways to protect people in the microgravity and radiation environment of space for long periods...


The longer you spend out in space, the more radiation you're exposed to. The Apollo missions were short in length (less than 2 weeks) . A mission to a NEO could take months, if not more. So yes, radiation becomes a much greater concern. I don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp.
edit on 20-7-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 515  516  517    519  520  521 >>

log in

join