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: 532
377
<< 529  530  531    533  534  535 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
As to the rest of your questions let's just start with a simple info-graphic on the Apache Point project.
physics.ucsd.edu...

... and take it from there.
edit on 4/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: smaller graphic so it doesn't get cropped as much


So you have access to this information, you've apparently reviewed it, and you still don't see the absurdity of it? I'm afraid I really can't help you, though I did try. Good luck to you sir.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
While it's certainly crafty to hide in plain sight, the OP was trying to poison the well by declaring all the sims done in the open as "fakes".


You call it "poison the well", I call it an accurate reflection of reality. Simulations are fakes, by any reasonable definition. Speaking of poisoning the well...nice try.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight. Grand speeches and long term promises are the rule. The Moon is old hat and something new is needed to stir the public to vote (for me!) whatever is proposed.


No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight...yet the Bush administration promised we'd be on the moon in four years. Never mentioned among snippets about this claim of his is the supposed fact that we've already been there, and still have access to the technology supposedly used then, yet it will take four years to develop it? You mean they can't just dust off the old landers and use them again? hahaha

Manned space flight is an anachronism. Those soldiers up there are performing military missions, the eighth-grade science experiments are just window dressing. Hell they even let eighth-grade students DESIGN the experiments. hahaha



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The simulations were fakes?


Yes, simulations are fakes. I find it riotous to actually examine some of the "simulating" they did. They had a simulated lunar lander, complete with a window out of which they could view the very realistically simulated moon made of plaster.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So this brings up a few things.
For one, was it that difficult to track Apollo?
This would call in question those amateur saying they got signals, etc.


Yes, it would be impossible for nearly anyone to "track Apollo". Tracking involves a little more than simply intercepting a signal. Also, a signal does not a manned lunar landing make. One can easily envision a system by which a signal could be sent from a dummy module sent just for the sole purpose of transmitting signals.

The real bottom line here is NASA is a military administrative organization, not a scientific research or space exploration organization. The military practices compartmentalization. Engineers, technicians and even astronauts know only what they're told about the missions they perform. They're frequently given "black box" problems and "black box" solutions, they don't see the forest, they only see the tree they've been tasked. It would be monumentally easy to lie to most if not all of them and still get the job done. There's no dupe like an willing dupe.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
And also the military-like or thuggish attitude NASA presented towards the workers to instill fear. Fear to question what they were doing, or authority.


Do you not remember a certain incident where several Apollo astro-nots were burned alive inside a capsule sitting on a launch pad? That's a pretty clear message to the remaining soldiers: we can and will kill you



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 


Sources for those. I call BS. As if he is a psychic who knows before hand what IP / handle you use.


I used the same ID that I used in the Yahoo! group, he just assumed it was me, and he was right.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   




Recently youtube user yesiamawizardjonny (Vincent McConnell) announced that he no longer believes that the Apollo moon landings were faked. I have no problem with that, but I will not play favorites when it comes to disproving erroneous claims used to prop up NASA's official story.

Yesterday, yesiamawizardjonny released a video in which he responses to the evidence of Fall Off, or unevenly spread lighting, in the Apollo photos. I've already covered much of what he has presented in his video, so I apologize in advance if this video seems like a flashback episode. I don't hold any grudges against him for changing his mind about Apollo. His account is still in my friends and subscription lists. In fact, I would like to point viewers in the direction of a fund raise he recently started to buy a $9,000 spacesuit replica from spacetoys.com. If he's able to raise enough money for two suits, I'd be happy to participate along side him in his experiments.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I don't hold any grudges against him for changing his mind about Apollo.


Why did Jarrah feel it necessary to say that?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Do you not remember a certain incident where several Apollo astro-nots were burned alive inside a capsule sitting on a launch pad? That's a pretty clear message to the remaining soldiers: we can and will kill you


What better way further their evil agenda than to cause a huge congressional investigation of their management? The Apollo 1 tragedy put NASA back at least a year, and cast the agency in an unfavorable light. If NASA wanted to kill a few malcontent astronauts, wouldn't it be wiser (and easier) just to sabotage one of their training jets?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Yes, it would be impossible for nearly anyone to "track Apollo". Tracking involves a little more than simply intercepting a signal. Also, a signal does not a manned lunar landing make. One can easily envision a system by which a signal could be sent from a dummy module sent just for the sole purpose of transmitting signals.


One can easily imagine drinking the entire Atlantic Ocean. Doesn't mean it's possible, though. The operators of the Earth station would be well aware of such things as doppler shift. In order to fool them, a craft would need to be sent on the exact same trajectory and send precisely the telemetry that would be expected.


The real bottom line here is NASA is a military administrative organization, not a scientific research or space exploration organization. The military practices compartmentalization. Engineers, technicians and even astronauts know only what they're told about the missions they perform. They're frequently given "black box" problems and "black box" solutions, they don't see the forest, they only see the tree they've been tasked. It would be monumentally easy to lie to most if not all of them and still get the job done. There's no dupe like an willing dupe.


Apparently, you are unaware of the structure of the United States government! NASA is a civilian agency:
www.usa.gov...
(Technically, the CIA is also a civilian agency, as it, too, is not under the direction of the JCS.)

Now, tell me at what point in your astronaut training were you given a "black box" problem? Oh, wait! You just made that up, didn't you? Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to manage a project on the scale of the space program if no-one were allowed to share information? Don't even consider using the Manhattan Project as an example. All the scientists and engineers knew exactly what they were doing. It was only the drudges manning the machine shops who were kept in the dark. Even then, they probably had a pretty good idea they were making parts for some kind of weapon. Even then, Stalin knew all about it. As for your assertion that "there is no dupe like a willing dupe:" Jarrah White counts on it.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Do you not remember a certain incident where several Apollo astro-nots were burned alive inside a capsule sitting on a launch pad? That's a pretty clear message to the remaining soldiers: we can and will kill you


What better way further their evil agenda than to cause a huge congressional investigation of their management? The Apollo 1 tragedy put NASA back at least a year, and cast the agency in an unfavorable light. If NASA wanted to kill a few malcontent astronauts, wouldn't it be wiser (and easier) just to sabotage one of their training jets?


You could fit three persons in a jet?
Anyway, are you saying that was modus operandi for NASA?
Death by jet?

Training jet crash 1964 October 31- Theodore Freeman
Training jet crash 1966 February 28- Elliot See, Charles Bassett
Training jet crash 1967 October 05- Clifton "C.C." Williams
Training jet crash 1967 December 8- Robert Lawrence

All before Apollo 8.

Skilled pilots couldn't handle their jets, but strange contraptions like the LM landing on alien terrain posed no issue?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Yes, simulations are fakes. I find it riotous to actually examine some of the "simulating" they did. They had a simulated lunar lander, complete with a window out of which they could view the very realistically simulated moon made of plaster.


So, what you're saying is that when the fire fighting academy builds a mock-up of a house and installs gas jets to simulate the conditions in a burning building, it's a fake. Step right in, those flames can't hurt you; they're fake.

Your attempt to conflate "simulation" with "deception" is not fooling anyone. If you cut a piece of glass to resemble the Hope Diamond it is a replica. It is glass and will not fool anyone. If you display it at Madame Tussaud's, people will admire its resemblance to the original. If you attempt to auction it off at Sotheby's it will quickly be exposed as a "fake."



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Yes, it would be impossible for nearly anyone to "track Apollo". Tracking involves a little more than simply intercepting a signal. Also, a signal does not a manned lunar landing make. One can easily envision a system by which a signal could be sent from a dummy module sent just for the sole purpose of transmitting signals.


One can easily imagine drinking the entire Atlantic Ocean. Doesn't mean it's possible, though. The operators of the Earth station would be well aware of such things as doppler shift. In order to fool them, a craft would need to be sent on the exact same trajectory and send precisely the telemetry that would be expected.


What!? This absolutely makes no sense.
What are you saying, a fake craft would follow Apollo???



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You could fit three persons in a jet?
Anyway, are you saying that was modus operandi for NASA?
Death by jet?


Yes, you can fit three people in a jet... or a car. I am certainly not implying that NASA was in the habit of murdering people, I was simply pointing out that doing so on the launch pad would be the worst way of doing it. By the way, thank you for reminding us all that the space program was not accomplished without loss of life. It makes the "why did Apollo go off so perfectly" argument look foolish.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight. Grand speeches and long term promises are the rule. The Moon is old hat and something new is needed to stir the public to vote (for me!) whatever is proposed.


No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight...
Except for the ones that sent people to the moon.


yet the Bush administration promised we'd be on the moon in four years.
Bush was wrong about a lot.


Never mentioned among snippets about this claim of his is the supposed fact that we've already been there,
It's assumed the audience already knows that. Like "the sky is blue".


and still have access to the technology supposedly used then, yet it will take four years to develop it? You mean they can't just dust off the old landers and use them again? hahaha
Yes, exactly. Those landers have been sitting in museums for two decades, and there's a whole infrastructure needed to build and test them, much less launch and fly them successfully. It'd be like walking into a Ford plant turning out Focuses and asking them to build you a Model T.


Manned space flight is an anachronism. Those soldiers up there are performing military missions, the eighth-grade science experiments are just window dressing. Hell they even let eighth-grade students DESIGN the experiments. hahaha
Do you have anything except blind skepticism?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by FoosM
And also the military-like or thuggish attitude NASA presented towards the workers to instill fear. Fear to question what they were doing, or authority.


Do you not remember a certain incident where several Apollo astro-nots were burned alive inside a capsule sitting on a launch pad? That's a pretty clear message to the remaining soldiers: we can and will kill you
Are you accusing NASA of murder?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight...yet the Bush administration promised we'd be on the moon in four years. Never mentioned among snippets about this claim of his is the supposed fact that we've already been there, and still have access to the technology supposedly used then, yet it will take four years to develop it? You mean they can't just dust off the old landers and use them again? hahaha


The Bush administration promised a lot and delivered poorly. Please provide a link to where W "promised" that we'd go back to the Moon in "four years." Yes, we still have the know-how to go to the Moon, we just don't have the hardware. If I give you the plans to a Ferrari, you could build one, right? Oh, wait... you'd need steel, machines, labor. Access to technology and the proper industrial base to manufacture that technology are two entirely different things. As for dusting off the "old landers": are you serious?


Manned space flight is an anachronism. Those soldiers up there are performing military missions, the eighth-grade science experiments are just window dressing. Hell they even let eighth-grade students DESIGN the experiments. hahaha


So... what you're saying is that the crew of the ISS are soldiers. That American, Russian, German and astronauts of other nationalities (including one Iranian!) are all up there performing military exercises? Seriously? Incidentally, I was in high school when I designed the experiment they flew on Skylab. You're playing a very difficult house.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



So you have access to this information, you've apparently reviewed it, and you still don't see the absurdity of it? I'm afraid I really can't help you, though I did try. Good luck to you sir.


You cannot help him because you haven't the slightest clue. You'll note I'm working my way backwards, so we'll get to the laser stuff presently.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



This "dynamo" hypothesis has been almost universally discredited by virtually all of known physics, it relies on hitherto undiscovered processes and phenomena. The Earth's magnetic field is a result of electric fields in space.


Citations, please. Jim McCanney does not count.




top topics



 
377
<< 529  530  531    533  534  535 >>

log in

join