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: 534
377
<< 531  532  533    535  536  537 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
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.


Oh - right - well if you say you're right it must be so.....


So Saturns were developed from rocket technology that includes ICBM's (but not ONLY ICBM's!).....saying that makes them ICBM's is like saying that the Space Shuttle is an ICBM, or all jet passenger aircraft are actually WW2 German Me-262 fighters, and all aircraft, of any type, are really wright flyers......

Sheesh!

The Saturn was developed from a concept that was thought MIGHT become an ICBM - but it's initial purpose was simply heavy lift - the need to put large satellites into orbit and allso long range logistics supply - yep - using a BM to shoot supplies at up to 6400km range!!

By the time the "Super-Juno" was renamed Saturn ther was no longer any thought of it being used as an ICBM.

Saturn was never an ICBM, and was never proposed to use it as an ICBM - it was far too big, far too unweildy, could not be concealed, took days to prepare for launch .... even by het standards of the late 1950's!

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_family)




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Name one, please.


I'll name two:


Nice try, but no nation or group of nations has the military presence in the world that the United States has, the French Air Force (hahaha) is in no way comparable. Neither is "Britain".



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
They also require permission from the FAA and the State Department... both civilian agencies.


hahaha wow you're really something else, I've rarely seen somebody so tenaciously cling to self-delusion



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
...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.


You've just done a fantastic job of undoing your previous post where you essentially made a diametrically opposing claim. Nice tap dancing, to be sure.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The Saturn was developed from a concept that was thought MIGHT become an ICBM - but it's initial purpose was simply heavy lift...


Well, clearly you've fallen for it, I doubt anything I could say would sway you, good luck to you sir.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkingGoogle
 



Nice try, but no nation or group of nations has the military presence in the world that the United States has, the French Air Force (hahaha) is in no way comparable. Neither is "Britain".


So the US is the biggest bad boy at the moment. What does that have to do with the historicity of Apollo?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by DJW001
They also require permission from the FAA and the State Department... both civilian agencies.


hahaha wow you're really something else, I've rarely seen somebody so tenaciously cling to self-delusion


So are yuo saying he is wrong, and you don't need permission from those agencies??

Should be easy enough for you to prove tehn - how about it? how about coming up with some actual info to justify whatever it is you think you vbelieve in...or at least whatever it is you are trying to tell us??

Like this:


Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The Saturn was developed from a concept that was thought MIGHT become an ICBM - but it's initial purpose was simply heavy lift...


Well, clearly you've fallen for it, I doubt anything I could say would sway you, good luck to you sir.


Yes there is - you could point me to some actual verifiable or credible information that supports your position - instead of trying to tell us that you know best and we have to believe you on your own say so!!

So how about it - provide us with some jsutification for your statements??

It might help us identify just what it is you are trying to say too.....

edit on 7-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


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,


No, I gave pure facts. The issue is you tend to skip over them when they are not convenient to your worldview.





Before the Vietnam debacle, defending one's country by serving in the military was considered to be a great honor;


Oh so now you are saying all those volunteers that join the military post vietnam, post 911, dont do it out of honor and respect for their country? Thats rich. So what are they doing it for?





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,

So it was to manipulate the USofA citizens. Well your not saying anything different then I am. Plus, why would Eisenhower have to reassure the world that the US intentions were peacefull, unless, the US had a history of being militaristic? I mean, if Switzerland decided to land men on the moon, I doubt the world would need reassuring that their intentions were nothing but peaceful.




and for the most part, they have been.


You cant prove that. Because many Shuttle missions, as JW had stated in his videos, as posters have stated in this thread, have been top secret.






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?


Hubble cant be pointed to Earth?
Yeah, why are we mapping the magnetic field of Jupiter and not landing men back to the moon, establishing long term bases like we have in Antarctica?



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


Oh yeah? Like who? And how many countries are they based in? As a matter of fact, how many foreign bases are on USofA soil, if there isnt any, why not? What right does the US have to put military bases in foreign countries? How is the constitutional?



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.


Oh, you mean like the USofA.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


Clearly this is DJ's own version of history riddled with understatements and oversimplifications.

Vietnam was a "debacle"? Let's recall something... the Gulf of Tonkin might be characterized as a "debacle" that results in more than a decade of USA violent imperial warfare in Viet Nam. But the planning and execution of the Viet Nam war was a necessary element of the Cold War..... a cold war that was largely an illusion created by government propaganda & media complicity is not a debacle. It resulted in American humiliation in the eyes of the world; There was only one "winner" that came out of the Viet Nam war era... it was the US military industrial complex.


Yes, the United States has military bases all over the world; so do a lot of countries! I think you are misrepresenting the situation


What? Name one country that compares to the United States! Name any other country that has more than 50 foreign bases.


More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. source: www.globalresearch.ca...


This military-industrial economy (America in the 1960's) was also running another costly program called Apollo. At this time American's were fighting 2 wars : a non-conventional war in Viet Nam and a propaganda war against Soviet Russia. It can be argued that both of these wars were irrational.

Apollo 11 lands on the moon On July 20, 1969. What else happened on that fateful day?


Jul 20, 1969:
Duck Hook plan completed

A top-secret study, commissioned by presidential assistant Henry Kissinger, is completed by the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Code-named Duck Hook, the study proposed measures for military escalation against North Vietnam. The military options included a massive bombing of Hanoi, Haiphong, and other key areas of North Vietnam; a ground invasion of North Vietnam; the mining of harbors and rivers; and a bombing campaign designed to sever the main railroad links to China. A total of 29 major targets in North Vietnam were pinpointed for destruction in a series of air attacks planned to last four days and to be renewed until Hanoi capitulated. This plan represented a drastic escalation of the war and was never ordered by President Richard Nixon. However, Nixon did order certain elements of the proposal, such as the intensified bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong and the mining of North Vietnamese harbors, in response to the 1972 North Vietnamese Easter Offensive. source: www.history.com...


Apollo 11 left something behind on the Moon.


The inscription read:
Here Men From The Planet Earth First Set Foot Upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We Came in Peace For All Mankind. They also left behind a memorial bag containing a gold replica of an olive branch as a traditional symbol of peace and a silicon message disk. source en.wikipedia.org...


NASA did not go to the Moon for peace. NASA went to the Moon to beat the communists. America had in the sixties, and it possesses to this day, a global, imperial, military-industrial command apparatus. The statements made by Borman and Anders:


Frank Borman “The whole concept of changing our mission and getting ready in four months was done because we were in the “Can Do” program… “Beat the Soviets to the Moon”. NASA likes to talk about scientific exploration and our lunar expert here… Bill Anders… he can pick up all the rocks in the world… that’s just wonderful… the reason we went to the moon on Apollo 8 was to beat the Russians… I want to give you a clue!” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...




Bill Anders “And remember as Frank has often said, Apollo was really not a program to explore the moon or develop technology, it was to beat the Soviets, to demonstrate our technological preeminence, as he said “Another battle in the Cold War”. And Apollo 8 and certainly Apollo 11 underscored America’s ability there and basically won that battle.” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...


In conclusion, DJ's version of history is negligent of the context of 50 years of cold war.! Apollo program was a cynical psy-op on the American people during a period of immense domestic turmoil. The "peaceful" intentions of space exploration put forth by the media and the military-industrial complex was an overt mind control program designed to distract from the violence portrayed on the nightly news. In the sixties, this process was very rudimentary. 50 years later the process becomes quite brutally clear: Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Kennedy gave NASA a problem: Land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.
NASA orchestrated the reaction: the Apollo program.
The military-industrial complex provides the solution: All the equipment necessary to get the job done. Getting the "job done" means "making people believe that it could work and showing them on television."

Nixon had no choice but to fake the Apollo moon landings because they could not risk another failure in the eyes of the world. Kennedy's mandate was accomplished... Hollywood style...




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No, I gave pure facts.


No, you gave pure interpretation.


Oh so now you are saying all those volunteers that join the military post vietnam, post 911, dont do it out of honor and respect for their country?


Where did I say that? I was merely providing historical context.


So it was to manipulate the USofA citizens. Well your not saying anything different then I am. Plus, why would Eisenhower have to reassure the world that the US intentions were peacefull, unless, the US had a history of being militaristic? I mean, if Switzerland decided to land men on the moon, I doubt the world would need reassuring that their intentions were nothing but peaceful.


I distinctly said "It was intended to reassure the world that America's intentions in space were primarily peaceful, and for the most part, they have been." As for Switzerland landing men on the Moon, their pro-fascist track record would give everyone the night sweats... if they were ever foolish enough to waste their money on such a profitless venture.


You cant prove that. Because many Shuttle missions, as JW had stated in his videos, as posters have stated in this thread, have been top secret.


Most people who follow the space biz agree... the STS "sucked" because too much deference was made to the DoD. The STS was intended as an "all user" bus. DoD had too much input. What does this have to do with the historicity of Apollo?


Hubble cant be pointed to Earth?


Yes, but the images would be useless. (The Hubble actually incorporates systems that were developed for spy satellites, this is not a secret. As a spy satellite, Hubble is useless.)


Yeah, why are we mapping the magnetic field of Jupiter and not landing men back to the moon, establishing long term bases like we have in Antarctica?


Seriously?


Oh yeah? Like who? And how many countries are they based in? As a matter of fact, how many foreign bases are on USofA soil, if there isnt any, why not? What right does the US have to put military bases in foreign countries? How is the constitutional?


Because we rock. By the way, why have you stopped posting on pravda.ru? Your virulent anti-americanism usually plays pretty well there. Oh, yeah, sorry, the Soviet Union had far flung outposts, too. What ever happened to the Soviet Union?


Oh, you mean like the USofA.


I would ask you to support this statement with examples, but that would take this thread even further off topic than it already is.

How does it feel to have "your" thread hijacked by StalkingGoogle?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Vietnam was a "debacle"?


Are you saying that it wasn't?



a cold war that was largely an illusion created by government propaganda & media complicity is not a debacle.


Yes, Stalin was our friend.



What? Name one country that compares to the United States! Name any other country that has more than 50 foreign bases.


What is your point? What has this to do with Apollo? Oh, wait! You're jealous!


In conclusion, DJ's version of history is negligent of the context of 50 years of cold war.! Apollo program was a cynical psy-op on the American people during a period of immense domestic turmoil.


Hmmmm... I seem to be the only one on this thread who tries to place the space program in its historical context. Believe it or not, the use of tax-payer money on the space program actually served to exacerbate America's internal conflict!



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


DJ, Look at the astronaut quotes again. Borman & Anders are talking explicitly about Apollo 8. I'm afraid you are missing the point of Apollo's historical context:


"By Christmas Day, the whole world had become engrossed in Apollo 8's epic journey: 1968 had been a particularly traumatic year and the planet was desperate for a diversion. In the US, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King had been assassinated, the Vietnam War had worsened dramatically and civil and student conflict was spreading through US cities. In Europe, the Prague 'spring' had been crushed by Soviet tanks. People needed cheer and the realisation that humans had reached the Moon provided that uplift perfectly.

There was a further twist to the mission's timing. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke's visionary epic 2001: A Space Odyssey was then showing in cinemas round the globe."
source www.guardian.co.uk...


Here is another historical context. It is here to illustrate that religious propaganda was involved in Apollo. We can also recall that in beating the Soviet's to the moon America was also the act of bringing Jesus Christ to the moon. This is a historical religious context that simply cannot be overlooked knowing that the Commies were atheists.


Anders, Borman and Lovell orbited the Moon 10 times. Then, as they prepared to . back to Earth, the astronauts held a last televised press conference. Each then took turns to read out the first 10 verses of the book of Genesis as they skimmed, at a height of 70 miles, over the lunar surface. The Old Testament struck many people as an odd choice for a final lunar reading. But all three (at the time, at least) were deeply religious: Borman and Lovell were Protestants, Anders a Catholic. None of them saw any ambiguity in reading out a version of creation that was at complete odds with the version supported by the scientists who had got them there. In any case, the reading went down well in America. same source


Apollo is one of the greatest mind control programs ever created. The Apollo 8 crew were "believers". It takes a certain type of religious mind to believe in the fairytales that NASA describes.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What right does the US have to put military bases in foreign countries?


The right that getting permission or a peace treaty that allows them gives.


How is the constitutional?


Because it isn't prohibited by the constitution.

there - glad to have sorted that out for you


Not sure how it is in the least bit relevant to the moan hoax hoax tho??

edit on 7-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here is another historical context. It is here to illustrate that religious propaganda was involved in Apollo. We can also recall that in beating the Soviet's to the moon America was also the act of bringing Jesus Christ to the moon.


Brilliant. So by providing proof that the Earth is at least 4.6 billion years old, NASA provided scientific support to biblical literalism. Pathetic, and you know it.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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?



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 .s 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 .s 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.


Do I know how to read an organizational chart? DJ, I have alot of respect for you, I hope you know that because I do. That being said, everything up to this point of your thread is admitting exactly what I have already said. Lets move to common sense and get off semantics eh?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I know that Jarrah White understands historical context because he is aware of larger themes such as the military industrial complex and the new world order.

It is impossible to understand Apollo outside the Cold War.


At the end of World War II, English author and journalist George Orwell used the term Cold War in his essay “You and the Atomic Bomb”, published October 19, 1945, in the British newspaper Tribune. Contemplating a world living in the shadow of the threat of nuclear warfare, he warned of a “peace that is no peace”, which he called a permanent “cold war”,[1] Orwell directly referred to that war as the ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and the Western powers"


There is a lot of denial in this thread concerning the fact that modern history has been cynically manipulated and greatly distorted. The missing Apollo telemetry data is a single glaring example. Neil Armstrong said it best:


We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. Neil Armstrong




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here is another historical context. It is here to illustrate that religious propaganda was involved in Apollo. We can also recall that in beating the Soviet's to the moon America was also the act of bringing Jesus Christ to the moon.


Brilliant. So by providing proof that the Earth is at least 4.6 billion years old, NASA provided scientific support to biblical literalism. Pathetic, and you know it.



When you use the word pathetic I know that you have no game. DJ has no game.
edit on 8/7/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I also find it highly entertaining that on that little chart DJ shows, the constitution is still at the top ROFLMA.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



Lets move to common sense and get off semantics eh?


Yes, let's.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


I also find it highly entertaining that on that little chart DJ shows, the constitution is still at the top ROFLMA.


Disturbed that you find our current crisis amusing. Good night.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 531  532  533    535  536  537 >>

log in

join