Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001


NASA has never been, is not or ever will be a civilian organization. Just because the government tells the public it is does not make it so.

Just because the people who operate NASA on the surface don't have bars on there shoulders does not mean that it isn't tightly organized, funded and controlled in almost every facet by the United States military and government.

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

from Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicle by Roger E. Bilstein

"The large vehicle boosters of the Saturn program borrowed liberally from the accumulated engine technology of the ICBM's..."

You have just cited a source that indicates that ICBMs were developed prior to and independently of the Saturn series. Congratulations, you have proven yourself wrong.

reply to post by Helious

NASA has never been, is not or ever will be a civilian organization. Just because the government tells the public it is does not make it so.

Just because the people who operate NASA on the surface don't have bars on there shoulders does not mean that it isn't tightly organized, funded and controlled in almost every facet by the United States military and government.

If NASA is a military organization, why did the Air Force have its own space program? If NASA is a military organization, what need is there for STRATCOM?

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

What do jet crashes, or car crashes have to do with Apollo?
You're looking foolish dude.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

NASA has never been, is not or ever will be a civilian organization. Just because the government tells the public it is does not make it so.

Just because the people who operate NASA on the surface don't have bars on there shoulders does not mean that it isn't tightly organized, funded and controlled in almost every facet by the United States military and government.

If NASA is a military organization, why did the Air Force have its own space program? If NASA is a military organization, what need is there for STRATCOM?

The Air Force space program is aimed at launching and maintaining military satellites and exotic space based weapon platforms.

STRATCOM? lol! Search STRATCOM news and see just how many times NASA is mentioned (Pro tip: Alot). The fact that NASA was created by congress, funded through stock and grants from the U.S. government or the simple truth that there web address is NASA.gov should be enough for anyone.

If it's not, just use your common sense..... How many highly classified payloads do you think NASA shuttles have carried into space? Who do the heads of NASA report too? If alien life was discovered, would the directer of NASA fire up a news conference and tell the world or would he contact his bosses in the military first?

Civilian organization, I think not.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

 

NASA has never been, is not or ever will be a civilian organization. Just because the government tells the public it is does not make it so.

Just because the people who operate NASA on the surface don't have bars on there shoulders does not mean that it isn't tightly organized, funded and controlled in almost every facet by the United States military and government.

If NASA is a military organization, why did the Air Force have its own space program? If NASA is a military organization, what need is there for STRATCOM?

Oh not this again.

We have already shown in this very thread that the reason for creating NASA was to entice civilian scientists to work for the government. Any technology created in NASA would serve as dual use for the DoD and Intelligence. Thats weaponizing space, and spying. NASA also serves as a public face, diverting the public attentions to "peaceful" programs instead of military programs.

When are you guys going to face the fact that the USofA is a militarized nation, with military bases all over the world? Practically every aspect of the US economy supports the military in one form or the other.

Originally posted by FoosM
So what you are saying is that they couldn't change orbits once in orbit?

Changing orbital inclination is extremely expensive fuel-wise. For instance, in a circular orbit, the change in velocity needed for an inclination change (Vi) is:

Vi = 2V*sin(i/2)

where V is the orbital velocity and i is the inclination change in degrees.

So, for Apollo, the orbital velocity was about 25,600 ft/sec at an inclination of about 32.5 degrees. So the change in velocity required to be put into a polar orbit (an inclination of 90 degrees) would be

Vi = 2*25600*sin(57.5/2) = 24,627 ft/sec.

The vehicle would be entirely incapable of producing such a change in velocity. The TLI burn on the S-IVB produced a change in velocity of only about 10,000 ft/sec. That amount of change in velocity would only be enough to provide an orbital inclination change of less than 23 degrees.

Originally posted by MasterToker42088
People who don't believe in the moon landing's. What idiots you are. You would rather believe a kid, then scientists.

Hahahahahaha you must be getting desperate now, if you consider this rubbish as proof. We landed on the moon get over it.

now let me ask you a question. If we didnt land why did soviet Russia not speak up ?

The "genius" has no understanding on science, let alone space exploration. This thread has made my day rofl.

And whats even more funnier. You Moon hoaxers, fell for it hook line and sinker.

typical agitator......has no proof of what he is accusing and deflects his opinions towards age aspects, plus he resorts to ridiculing the reader for considering an alternate interpretation of the "official story" this is troll 101, it's sad they are here among us...I personally think that video about the lack of a crater is damning enough information.....remember, if the gravity is less than on the earth, it's still proportionate, so it wouldn't take as much to do something there as it would here.......it would be interesting to see what a leaf blower would do to the dirt on the moon....probably blow it to kingdom come, just like the video of them supposedly kicking a boulder around like it was nothing....the sand would seem to go forever with very little force......

reply to post by Helious

The Air Force space program is aimed at launching and maintaining military satellites and exotic space based weapon platforms.

Correct.

STRATCOM? lol! Search STRATCOM news and see just how many times NASA is mentioned (Pro tip: Alot). The fact that NASA was created by congress, funded through stock and grants from the U.S. government or the simple truth that there web address is NASA.gov should be enough for anyone.

Yes, NASA has a "dotgov" domain because it is an arm of the Executive branch of the United States government! It is funded entirely by Congress. It is not subservient to the Department of Defense. Do you know how to read an organizational chart?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba90f370cc33.jpg[/atsimg]

www.democraticunderground.com...

If it's not, just use your common sense..... How many highly classified payloads do you think NASA shuttles have carried into space? Who do the heads of NASA report too? If alien life was discovered, would the directer of NASA fire up a news conference and tell the world or would he contact his bosses in the military first?

Serving military personnel frequently fly on United Airlines. Does that make United Airlines a military organization? As the above chart shows, the heads of NASA report directly to the Office of the President, not the Defense Department. If NASA discovered life elsewhere, it would evaluate the evidence thoroughly then publish the data for peer review. They would probably hold a press conference and hedge their announcement with words like "possibly," "may have," "strongly suggests," etc. On the other hand, if they detected a Vogon Destructor Fleet barreling towards us, they might have a sit-down with the POTUS first.

reply to post by FoosM

Oh not this again.

My sentiments exactly.

We have already shown in this very thread that the reason for creating NASA was to entice civilian scientists to work for the government. Any technology created in NASA would serve as dual use for the DoD and Intelligence. Thats weaponizing space, and spying. NASA also serves as a public face, diverting the public attentions to "peaceful" programs instead of military programs.

No you haven't. You have expressed that opinion, but it overlooks several important things. Before the Vietnam debacle, defending one's country by serving in the military was considered to be a great honor; any scientist or engineer would jump at the chance to help keep America safe from its enemies... even "lefties." The CIA was notorious for attracting extremely liberal academics during the Cold War. Most of the people working in rocket development in the US at the time, as you keep reminding us yourself, had no qualms about building rockets for the Third Reich. I doubt working for the Pentagon would trouble them very much.

Making NASA a civilian agency was indeed a political move on the part of Eisenhower. It was intended to reassure the world that America's intentions in space were primarily peaceful, and for the most part, they have been. Granted, much of the technology can and does serve a "dual purpose," just as as a ship can chart new waters, engage in trade or blockade an enemy port. What military goal does the Hubble telescope serve? What military advantage is there to mapping the magnetic field of Jupiter?

When are you guys going to face the fact that the USofA is a militarized nation, with military bases all over the world? Practically every aspect of the US economy supports the military in one form or the other.

Yes, the United States has military bases all over the world; so do a lot of countries! I think you are misrepresenting the situation, however. Does the US spend a disproportionate amount of money on defense? Yes, absolutely. Too large a portion of the economy revolves around military spending, but that is not the same as " Practically every aspect of the US economy supports the military in one form or the other."

If you want to see what a "fully militarized" nation looks like, look at Pakistan or Iran. The military actually owns the industries there, and often decides affairs of state over the will of the "elected" governments.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

from Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicle by Roger E. Bilstein

"The large vehicle boosters of the Saturn program borrowed liberally from the accumulated engine technology of the ICBM's..."

You have just cited a source that indicates that ICBMs were developed prior to and independently of the Saturn series. Congratulations, you have proven yourself wrong.

I thought you might seize on that to claim I'm wrong. Well I'm not, you're grasping at straws. Saturn rockets were based on earlier ICBM's...because they were ICBM's...DUH. So as even an imbecile could see at this point, I'm right. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by DJW001
Making NASA a civilian agency was indeed a political move on the part of Eisenhower.

NASA is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a "civilian agency", unless you are suggesting that because a "civilian" (the President of the United States of America) is the de facto dictator of the US military that anything under the Pentagon's auspices is ostensibly "civilian" in nature. It's riotous, to be honest, I wonder if you have a straight face typing that, or if you're one of these:

bits.blogs.nytimes.com...

"The Pentagon is developing plans to use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as both a resource and a weapon in future conflicts. Its research and development agency is offering $42 million in funding to anyone who can help."

Originally posted by DJW001
Yes, the United States has military bases all over the world; so do a lot of countries!

Name one, please.

Originally posted by DJW001
Yes, NASA has a "dotgov" domain because it is an arm of the Executive branch of the United States government! It is funded entirely by Congress. It is not subservient to the Department of Defense. Do you know how to read an organizational chart?

Do you know how to recognize smoke in mirrors? Try performing a space launch without permission of the US military and see where it gets you, particularly now that they have Airborne Lasers and a host of other energy weapon systems capable of knocking things down from orbit or below.

Originally posted by DJW001
Serving military personnel frequently fly on United Airlines. Does that make United Airlines a military organization?

Sure, I'd buy that, since all airlines operate only at the behest of NORAD and the US military as a whole. That's why the US military has the capability to commandeer any and all civilian passenger jets, just like they did on September 11, 2001. You might remember those electronic hijackings, if I recall correctly they were smashed into some buildings somewhere. I can't say where, maybe you can help me out, do you know?

Originally posted by DJW001
As the above chart shows, the heads of NASA report directly to the Office of the President, not the Defense Department.

So what you're saying is that NASA reports directly to the Commander in Chief of the US military. Isn't that interesting. Are you trying to make your case or smash it to bits? Well done in any case.

Originally posted by DJW001
If NASA discovered life elsewhere, it would evaluate the evidence thoroughly then publish the data for peer review.

That may or may not be true, but it is wholly irrelevant, just like peer review itself, which is a political process, not part of science. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by DJW001
They would probably hold a press conference and hedge their announcement with words like "possibly," "may have," "strongly suggests," etc.

No, that's what they want to do when they wish to have a cover story for a covert military mission. There are other cover stories but that's a common one.

Originally posted by DJW001
If NASA is a military organization, why did the Air Force have its own space program? If NASA is a military organization, what need is there for STRATCOM?

This is akin to saying the FHA couldn't possibly be producing housing loans because HUD does it! It's ridiculous on its face. The reason there are multiple departments is for redundancy as well as differentiation and division of labor and resources.

The following might illuminate you a bit:

search.usa.gov...

U.S. Strategic Command - Successful Launch of ORS-1 from NASA ...

U.S. Strategic Command - Former astronaut takes Helm of 14th AF ...

U.S. Strategic Command - Human Space Flight Support (Det 3, 45 OG)

U.S. Strategic Command - 2010 Space Symposium

USSTRATCOM Space Control and Space Surveillance

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

NASA is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a "civilian agency", unless you are suggesting that because a "civilian" (the President of the United States of America) is the de facto dictator of the US military that anything under the Pentagon's auspices is ostensibly "civilian" in nature

ci·vil·ian   [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2.
Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
adjective
4.
of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.

dictionary.reference.com...

Any questions?

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

Name one, please.

I'll name two:

Britain:

Ascension Island (part of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha) - the Base known as RAF Ascension Island is used by both the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force.
Bermuda — became one of the primary Royal Navy base in the Western Hemisphere, following US independence. The Naval establishment included an admiralty, a dockyard, and a naval squadron. A considerable military garrison was built up to protect it, and Bermuda, which the British Government came to see as a base, rather than as a colony, was known as the Gibraltar of the West.[41] Canada and the USA also established bases in Bermuda during the Second World War, which were maintained through the Cold War. Since 1995, the military force in Bermuda has been reduced to the local territorial battalion, the Bermuda Regiment.
British Indian Ocean Territory — the island of Diego Garcia is home to a large naval base and airbase leased to the United States by the United Kingdom until 2036 (unless renewed), but that either government can opt out of the agreement in 2016.
Falkland Islands - the British Forces Falkland Islands includes commitments from the British Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.
Gibraltar - British Forces Gibraltar includes a Royal Navy dockyard (also used by NATO), RAF Gibraltar - used by the RAF and NATO and a local garrison — the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.
The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus - maintained as strategic British military bases in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

en.wikipedia.org...

France

BA 160 Dakar Ouakam, Africa. Mixed units.
BA 181 Reunion Island. Mixed units.
BA 188 Djibouti, Africa. Mixed units.
Air elements Libreville/Gabon.
Air elements N’djamena/Chad. Mixed units.
BA 190 French Polynesia. Mixed unit.
BA 365 Martinique. Mixed unit.
BA 367 French Guiana, South America. Mixed units.
BA 376 New Caledonia, Pacific Air defence radar command BA 376 New Caledonia, Air defence squadrons Mirage 2000D and transition sqn Mirage 2000B, training facility
BA 104 Abu Dhabi

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

Do you know how to recognize smoke in mirrors? Try performing a space launch without permission of the US military and see where it gets you, particularly now that they have Airborne Lasers and a host of other energy weapon systems capable of knocking things down from orbit or below.

They also require permission from the FAA and the State Department... both civilian agencies.

Sure, I'd buy that, since all airlines operate only at the behest of NORAD and the US military as a whole. That's why the US military has the capability to commandeer any and all civilian passenger jets, just like they did on September 11, 2001. You might remember those electronic hijackings, if I recall correctly they were smashed into some buildings somewhere. I can't say where, maybe you can help me out, do you know?

I assume you know that none of that is true. (Or do you simply not know what the word "behest" means?)

So what you're saying is that NASA reports directly to the Commander in Chief of the US military. Isn't that interesting. Are you trying to make your case or smash it to bits? Well done in any case.

The Commander in Chief happens to be a civilian.

That may or may not be true, but it is wholly irrelevant, just like peer review itself, which is a political process, not part of science. Thanks for playing.

Granted the peer review process is sometimes "political" in the sense that some scientists don't play well with others. It is not "political" in the sense that the peer review process is dictated by the government, as it was in the Soviet Union. You're welcome.

No, that's what they want to do when they wish to have a cover story for a covert military mission. There are other cover stories but that's a common one.

You've never actually heard a scientist announce a discovery, have you?

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

This is akin to saying the FHA couldn't possibly be producing housing loans because HUD does it! It's ridiculous on its face. The reason there are multiple departments is for redundancy as well as differentiation and division of labor and resources.

The following might illuminate you a bit:

search.usa.gov...

U.S. Strategic Command - Successful Launch of ORS-1 from NASA ...

U.S. Strategic Command - Former astronaut takes Helm of 14th AF ...

U.S. Strategic Command - Human Space Flight Support (Det 3, 45 OG)

U.S. Strategic Command - 2010 Space Symposium

USSTRATCOM Space Control and Space Surveillance

No, it's like saying there's no need for the CIA because the Defense Department has the DIA. The organizations have differing functions and priorities, although there is a certain amount of overlap and institutional rivalry. Again, what need of NASA if the US is upfront about their military and espionage programs? Naturally, they liaise.

Click here for more information.