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: 535
377
<< 532  533  534    536  537  538 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

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've yet to see an explanation as to how the SaturnV was a test of some future (at that time) ICBM. Given the SaturnV was liquid fueled and the existing MinutemanII and successor MinutemanIII and later MX were all solid fueled I suspect none will be forthcoming. Moreover I'd like to hear (well, not really) why the US military would bother spending all the $$s on this massive missile test cover story while they were testing Minuteman ICBMs w/o such a ruse before, during and after the Apollo era. What where they supposedly hiding and from who ? A return to '50's missile technology ? ... from the Russians (who'd never have been able to see the implications) ?? The "theory" is absurd on it's face.
edit on 8/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

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.


And yet more assertions w/o any form of reasoning or backup. Care to put forth your link budget that shows how it can't de done ? I'll not hold my breath.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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...


So who was being fooled ? The world ?? Does this world include the Russians or were they bought off with the grain deal ? And if they were, what Cold War are you talking about ?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMNo, I gave pure facts. The issue is you tend to skip over them when they are not convenient to your worldview.
You brazen hypocrite.




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?
He's talking about the public image of joining the military.

And no, a lot of people do it because they seek a purpose, or need the money, or want to kill people for money. There's plenty of reasons, not necessarily honor. None of which has any real relevance to the moon landings, so stop trying to change the subject.




So it was to manipulate the USofA citizens. Well your not saying anything different then I am.
No, he's saying plenty different.


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.
Um, the US does have a history of being militaristic. It's one of its biggest stereotypes. Also not really relevant.



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.
How many of these missions? Are they a majority of the total missions launched by NASA, ever? Because "for the most part" means "a majority".


Hubble cant be pointed to Earth?
Not as an effective spy satellite, no, IIRC.


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?
Politics and money. We've told you this before.


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?
You're just throwing incredulity at the wall to see what sticks, aren't you? This is not relevant. Stop questioning everything.


Oh, you mean like the USofA.
The United States is not under martial law, and you know it. Your hyperbolic statements and arguments by questioning in this post are largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I do like how, according to StalkingGoogle's argument, every part of the United States Government, ever, is part of the military because they eventually answer to the President. Including Amtrak.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The flag had WIRE in it. They told us that when it happened. They KNEW there was no air. So how smart can this guy be? Allof us around then knew that...so how come you dont?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
I do like how, according to StalkingGoogle's argument, every part of the United States Government, ever, is part of the military because they eventually answer to the President. Including Amtrak.

That would seem to be his big complaint. Funny thing though, I can spin his reasoning into support for Apollo putting men on the Moon. It would go something like this ...

During the Cold War, the militaristic US and USSR were locked in a struggle for world dominance. After Cuba both figured out that slugging it out with nukes was counterproductve and the slow war-by-proxy was not a guaranteed winning strategy. So what to do ?

Taking the high ground has always been a winning military strategy and there was no higher ground than the Moon. Both sides, of course, were willing to militarize space, but simple sat-weapons were never going to be enough. Too few, too weak and too easy to track. Moreover, like the missile nuke game, attack from known sat-weapons would leave the opponent open to retaliation. But an asteroid strike, seemingly from outer space, with no warning ... well what can you do about that ?!?

So the US (and perhaps the USSR) set out to claim the Moon as a military base from which to throw big rocks. Rocks that can't be proven, or heck even much be suspected, to have come from the enemy. Rocks of sufficient size and in sufficient quantity that no countermeasure or defense was possible. Rocks that wouldn't leave the conquered land (or world) irradiated beyond usefulness. Apollo was the precursor to setting up manned Moonbases from which such rocks could be assembled and launched in secret and w/o any warning. A base that was virtually unassailable from the Earth. Man on the Moon, you bet ! And Apollo was to be just the beginning !!

edit on 8/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: spelun



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:16 PM
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...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


Four years from when ?
linkypoo to 1/15/2004 CNN article


Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
[snip]
The president unveiled what he billed as a "new course" for the nation's space program in a speech at NASA headquarters, shifting the long-term focus from the space shuttle and the international space station to the creation of a new manned space vehicle that will be flying with a crew in 10 years and will return humans to the moon within 16 years.

Bush proposed spending $12 billion over the next five years on the effort. About $1 billion of that will come from an increase in NASA's budget, while the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs within NASA's current $86 billion budget. The overall NASA budget would stay at about 1 percent of the federal budget, according to White House figures.

But some in Congress questioned whether the funding would be enough to achieve the president's ambitious goals. And the project drew criticism from groups who say the money would be better spent on domestic programs.


Hey that last paragraph sounds familiar. How long after GWB was out of office would 2020 be ? Hmmmm...



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

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.


You may call it anything you wish but I think you'd find out (if you cared to listen), like President Clinton found out, that trying to redefine the meaning of certain words doesn't always work out. You've yet to show any support that any of the data presented during the Apollo missions were faked in any way. I don't think you've even bothered to make that claim directly, though near as I can tell from your disjointed ramblings that's your belief. So tell me how the lightning strike on Apollo 12 was "faked". How did they get the telemetry stream to switch over from one fake data stream to other faked data stream so quickly ? And how did they get the tele stream back to post-strike "normal" so quickly ? How many such incidents did NASA have queued up and waiting for implementation ? Was it just lightning strikes they were ready for or were the NASA ticksters as prepared for all the other possible glitches ? And why, if all the data was simulated, did NASA even bother to "fake" any effect from the lightning strike ? Why not just continue with the pre-assigned "fake" tele data as if nothing had happened ? Why attract lots of attention with an anomaly that will later be examined in great detail and take the chance that some mission controller or post-flight analyist (who's not in on the hoax) will see something not quite right ? After all planes and missiles (and I've seen a few) get hit by lightning with some regularity. The vast majority of the times nothing happens. Why not just let A12 be one of these times ?


BTW making a comparison btw you and Clinton is "poisoning the well". Showing how silly your assertion was is not. Please try to have some idea of what you're talking about.
edit on 8/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Last general theory I can recall is that the inner Earth is not just 1 big dynamo but rather a collection of lesser ones that added up and (mostly) look like one big dynamo...Rocks have shown this reversal has happened many times in the past so the theory of multiple dynamos seems on solid footing.


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. All magnetic fields are a result of electric fields. There is no other known way to generate magnetic fields. This kind of cartoonish pop science turns my stomach, it's just another indication of the force-fed ignorance so many people suffer.


Universally discredited ? Well by all means point me to the many such articles saying this. And while you're at it why don't you put forth a few words on how strong this external E-feild is, must be, in order to produce the magnetic feild we've mapped around the Earth. And why is it this E-feild doesn't affect the trajectories of the charged particles near Earth ?

ps - BiB I've not forgotten you ... just been busy doing whack-a-troll duty.
edit on 8/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


What?! Many of the Shuttle missions have been top secret? I don't think so...

Out of 135 Shuttle flights. 9 of them were missions for the DoD. 7 of those were classified, 1 partially classified and 1 unclassified.

In what bizarro universe does 8 out of 135 equal "many"?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
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.


What?! Many of the Shuttle missions have been top secret? I don't think so...

Out of 135 Shuttle flights. 9 of them were missions for the DoD. 7 of those were classified, 1 partially classified and 1 unclassified.

In what bizarro universe does 8 out of 135 equal "many"?


Source


Edit to add:


Between 1982 and 1992, NASA launched 11 shuttle flights with classified payloads, honoring a deal that dated to 1969, when the National Reconnaissance Office—an organization so secret its name could not be published at the time—


You are already wrong.

www.airspacemag.com...

Edit to emphasize... 1969



edit on 8-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You can't find a list of the shuttle missions???


Here's a hint - wiki list of shuttle missions

I can give you more hints if you want?

I'm sure you'll get an apology for getting the number wrong - which is much less than your many egregious falsehoods and mistakes - but his comment still stands - 11/135 doesn't seem like a good case to defend "many".....
edit on 8-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 



You can't find a list of the shuttle missions???


Here's a hint - wiki list of shuttle missions

I can give you more hints if you want?

I'm sure you'll get an apology for getting the number wrong - which is much less than your many egregious falsehoods and mistakes - but his comment still stands - 11/135 doesn't seem like a good case to defend "many".....
edit on 8-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I posted NRO, JRA posted DoD.
See where this is going?
Or cant you see the bigger picture?

nevermind... I guess if you could you would see that Apollo is a hoax...

Im surprised you didnt chastise JRA for posting his misleading number.
Tsk-tsk. Right or wrong, its all about the stars for you guys, right



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
May I take just a moment to ask WTH STS missions, classified or not, have to do with Apollo ? I've already given as good a reason as I've heard from HB'ers as to why any DoD, M-I-C or whatever acronym laden name you care to propose might want to put a man on the Moon. Since no proof of any kind seems to be needed in this discussion, I declare I winz teh interwebz.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM[

I posted NRO, JRA posted DoD.
See where this is going?


Sure - the DoD missions in the list include all the NRO satellites like Lacrosse - so this is going to somewhere where you try to make a distinction that does not exist.

Seen it before.....


nevermind... I guess if you could you would see that Apollo is a hoax...


I could see Apolo as a hoax if there was any credible evidence presented that Apollo was a hoax.

so far all you do is say "the bigger picture proves it", and provide lots of misleading and/or misunderstood (by you) "examples" of inconsistancies and errors that invariably prove only that you do not understand what you are talking about.


Im surprised you didnt chastise JRA for posting his misleading number.
Tsk-tsk. Right or wrong, its all about the stars for you guys, right


Yeah - that's why I got so many for my post.....oh...no-one bothered...couldn't you at least have given me one for posting an actual link to some actual information that actually exists and is actually proveable? I mean that's better than you manage to do and yet you get stars for yours!!

Come on - fair's fair - if you get stars for carp then the least you could do is give me 1 for facts.



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



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Yes DJW, that is correct but there are also alteration done during flight..

As you and others have stated, they MUST have occurred to alter the attitude of the craft to protect the astronauts from radiation.

These were NOT taken into account..


Just want to comment on the above ... and perhaps to steer this thread back on track.


The midcourse correction was done about 26.75 hours into the flight. That's some 24 hours after the TLI burn. At the MCC1 time Apollo 11 was about 210,000 miles from the Earth ... waaaaay beyond the VABs. So the MCC really had no effect on radiation dose from the VABs.
history.nasa.gov...

As for Apollo attitude going through the VABs ... what Braeunig did was first estimate unsheilded dose and then show that it was not equivalent to death by radiation poisoning. Then he added that Apollo was sheilded and so the real dose would be less than his estimation. He didn't come up with a calculated dose (sheilded) for multiple reasons, given on his site. So trying to correct any dose estimate for vehicle attitude was not in his game plan. It was sufficient to show VABs did not equal death ... as claimed by the HB crowd.


jra

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Apologies in advance for continuing this off topic conversation. I'll be done with it after this.


Originally posted by FoosM
I posted NRO, JRA posted DoD.


DoD missions launching NRO payloads. Just like what the DoD space program does now, using ULA as a launch provider.


Im surprised you didnt chastise JRA for posting his misleading number.


The only one being misleading is you, with your claim about there being many classified shuttle missions.

My total number of DoD missions was off by 2. I didn't include STS-4 originally, because it was an R&D flight and I wasn't aware that STS-44 was a DoD mission. However, neither of those missions were classified, so my original number of 8 classified DoD missions still stands.

8 out of 135 does not equal many.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Many shuttle missions have been partly or entirely military in nature.


www.faqs.org...

See, its not only my words,




USAF gained the use of up to one third of all launches[1] and the right to requisition the next available launch for high-priority payloads.[5] It renovated an existing launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to send shuttles into polar orbits[4] and established the Manned Spaceflight Control Squadron at NASA Mission Control in Houston. The squadron's personnel would monitor military shuttle flights, ahead of a future mission control center in Colorado that would monitor an expected 12 to 14 military shuttle flights each year.[1]






“NRO requirements drove the shuttle design,” says Parker Temple, a historian who served on the policy staff of the secretary of the Air Force and later with the NRO’s office within the Central Intelligence Agency. The Air Force signed on to use the shuttle too, and in 1979 started building a launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base in northern California for reaching polar orbits.


Neither the Air Force nor the NRO was ever comfortable relying exclusively on NASA’s vehicle, however. Delays in shuttle launches only increased their worry; even before the 1986 Challenger accident, they were looking for a way off the shuttle and back onto conventional rockets like the Titan. The uneasy relationship between the Air Force, NRO, and NASA assumed a human face in 1979, when the military chose its first group of shuttle astronauts. Two years before the shuttle’s first launch, the NRO selected 13 Manned Spaceflight Engineers as potential payload specialists, all but one from the Air Force. The new military astronauts ranged in age from 24 to 36. Most had advanced degrees in engineering; one was a Ph.D. They were experienced in satellite flying and acquisition. And they believed they were the vanguard of the Air Force in space. Only one of that first group ever made it to orbit.


Wow, that sure sounds like a civies are in control of NASA




T.K. (Ken) Mattingly, an Apollo-era astronaut who also reached the rank of rear admiral before retiring from the Navy in 1989, commanded the shuttle’s fourth mission, in June 1982, which carried the program’s first classified payload. He describes the relationship between the NASA astronauts and the MSEs in those early days as “sour.”

Nor did the MSEs have much support within the Pentagon. Jeff DeTroye, one of the first 13 military astronauts, was assigned to escort General Lew Allen, Air Force chief of staff, during a visit to Los Angeles for the 20th anniversary of the NRO in 1981. Upon learning of DeTroye’s involvement in the shuttle, Allen was blunt. He had played “a primary role in canceling the Manned Orbiting Laboratory [a proposed military space station of the 1960s], and had he had his way, would have canceled the shuttle,” DeTroye says. Allen made it clear he thought there was no role for man in space, period, according to DeTroye.


Wow, no respect for Apollo?


Today, the astronauts remain bound to silence. Says Mattingly, “The accomplishments were first-class. I would give anything if someone would say, ‘Here’s what we did. You should be proud of it.’ ” As for the Ross-Shepherd spacewalk on STS-27, we still can’t say for certain that it happened. There is another clue, however. On February 14, 2001, astronauts Tom Jones and Robert Curbeam were in the middle of their third spacewalk of space station assembly mission STS-98. NASA public affairs had advertised it beforehand as the 100th American spacewalk. But just as the astronauts were about to say something to mark the event, pilot Mark Polansky radioed them on a private channel to warn them off. According to Jones’ 2006 memoir, Skywalking, “Somebody had done a recount, and discovered that the real 100th EVA [extravehicular activity] had been two days ago on EVA-2.” How could that happen? Had there been a secret spacewalk that never made it into the official tally? Maybe someday we’ll all be cleared to know.


The astronauts keeping secrets? I thought big missions would always get leaked out, lol.

It looks like the military was planning up to a 100 missions with the shuttle, but because of the accidents, they backed off, opting for unmanned flights.

Now you guys can sit there and defend this militarization of space using "civilian" infrastructure paid for by your taxed monies, but I think its disgusting. One military mission, is too many. Sorry, but you guys have priorities screwed up.




en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now you guys can sit there and defend this militarization of space using "civilian" infrastructure paid for by your taxed monies, but I think its disgusting. One military mission, is too many. Sorry, but you guys have priorities screwed up.


Yes "we" could (defend this militarization of space) but that would be another thread. But I'll tell you what, this weekend I'll have a campfire and gather the neighbors around it and sing Kum-ba-ya if it'll make you feel better. But you have to do one thing for me ... tell me how any of this "proves" man did not land on the Moon in 1969.
edit on 9/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 532  533  534    536  537  538 >>

log in

join