Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

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)

Oh really, I thought the US signed a treaty against the militarization of space? Have they been breaking treaties and promises again? Thats their modus ops. The US stops other people from having what they have or want to have. Land, WMD, stable economy, wealth, oil, and the list goes on.

I think its rather apparent what this has to do with faking the missions.
But you dont like to talk about aspects of history that help make people realize how and why Apollo was fake.
Apollo was a military psyop, a jobs program & intelligence.

NASA's budget was highest in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo which involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly 4% of the total federal budget was being devoted to the space program.

the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars)

failure is not an option when your spending that kind of money

Talking about psyops, take a look at this

I suppose because they knew Apollo 13 wasnt going to land on the moon.
CBS decided to show the public what they were going to miss!
Im sure if they had put a little more effort and $$$ into it, they would have fooled the public easy.





All that detail, even down to the starless skies, no blast crater...


Speaking of Apollo 13, was there actually video taken of the damage to the CMS?
I dont recall really seeing much, like a second, or any of it at all (maybe they were just photos being scaled)

I find that strange, as if, they couldn't pull off the special effect for debris floating in space. LOL.

reply to post by FoosM

Oh really, I thought the US signed a treaty against the militarization of space?

Not exactly. Here is the the treaty you are probably thinking of and what it actually says:

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article III

States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, instal such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

www.mcgill.ca...

Notice carefully how it is worded. It does not say that "no military activities of any kind can be conducted in outer space." Neither the US nor USSR would be so daft as to agree to that. What it does is ban putting nuclear weapons in orbit. This is fine because orbital nukes would be useless; they would only pass over their intended target for a brief window every ninety minutes. Not very flexible, ICBMs were clearly the way to go. It also bans hypothetical "death rays," etc, for similar reasons of convenience. It does not ban communications and intelligence satellites, nor does it ban military personnel from operating peacefully in space. Sorry, it just says what it says. (BTW, this is why State has to approve and authorize certain missions.)

I think its rather apparent what this has to do with faking the missions.

No, not at all and you keep making confusing and contradictory claims. Either all that hardware was real or it wasn't. Make up your mind.

Speaking of Apollo 13, was there actually video taken of the damage to the CMS?
I dont recall really seeing much, like a second, or any of it at all (maybe they were just photos being scaled)

I find that strange, as if, they couldn't pull off the special effect for debris floating in space. LOL.

You have never seen it because you have scrupulously evaded looking for it; that way you can argue from ignorance. Fast forward to 1:12:00:

width="640" height="506" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"> "http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.1.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="506" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" cachebusting="true" bgcolor="#000000" quality="high" flashvars="config=['key':'#$aa4baff94a9bdcafce8','playlist':['format=Thumbnail?.jpg',['autoPlay':false,'url':'apollo12_8_1_512kb.mp4']],'clip':['autoP lay':true,'baseUrl':'http://www.archive.org/download/Apollo12And1316mmOnboardFilm/','scaling':'fit','provider':'h264streaming','showCaptions':true],'c anvas':['backgroundColor':'#000000','backgroundGradient':'none'],'plugins':['controls':['playlist':false,'fullscreen':true,'height':26,'backgroundColo r':'#000000','autoHide':['fullscreenOnly':true]],'h264streaming':['url':'http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.pseudostreaming-3.2.1.swf'],'captions' :['url':'http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.captions-3.2.0.swf','captionTarget':'content'],'content':['display':'block','url':'http://www.archive. org/flow/flowplayer.content-3.2.0.swf','bottom':26,'left':0,'width':640,'height':50,'backgroundGradient':'none','backgroundColor':'transparent','textD ecoration':'outline','border':0,'style':['body':['fontSize':'14','fontFamily':'Arial','textAlign':'center','fontWeight':'bold','color':'#ffffff']]]],' contextMenu':[[],'-','Flowplayer v3.2.1']]">

If it doesn't embed, you'll find it here:
www.archive.org...

By the way, go back and view the whole thing. How did they make all those objects seem to float in that tiny, completely enclosed space?

Originally posted by DJW001

Notice carefully how it is worded. It does not say that "no military activities of any kind can be conducted in outer space." Neither the US nor USSR would be so daft as to agree to that. What it does is ban putting nuclear weapons in orbit. This is fine because orbital nukes would be useless; they would only pass over their intended target for a brief window every ninety minutes. Not very flexible, ICBMs were clearly the way to go. It also bans hypothetical "death rays," etc, for similar reasons of convenience. It does not ban communications and intelligence satellites, nor does it ban military personnel from operating peacefully in space. Sorry, it just says what it says. (BTW, this is why State has to approve and authorize certain missions.)

Good point, but I ask, are the soviets privy to what the US has actually put into space?
How do we know they didnt put any "death rays" or nukes? If its for peaceful purposes, why are they not being open and honest about it?

No, not at all and you keep making confusing and contradictory claims. Either all that hardware was real or it wasn't. Make up your mind.

You silly goose.
Define what you mean by "real".
Are those "space-craft" hanging in the air and space museum real?

Speaking of Apollo 13, was there actually video taken of the damage to the CMS? I dont recall really seeing much, like a second, or any of it at all (maybe they were just photos being scaled) I find that strange, as if, they couldn't pull off the special effect for debris floating in space. LOL.

You have never seen it because you have scrupulously evaded looking for it; that way you can argue from ignorance. Fast forward to 1:12:00: If it doesn't embed, you'll find it here: www.archive.org...

Ok I looked, didnt see anything I was talking about.

I see astronauts that supposedly should be cold but noticed no condensation on their breath.
I saw two craft floating in space... wtf??

reply to post by FoosM

Good point, but I ask, are the soviets privy to what the US has actually put into space?
How do we know they didnt put any "death rays" or nukes? If its for peaceful purposes, why are they not being open and honest about it?

As I pointed out, space is not the best place to station nukes. An orbital death ray is perhaps another matter, and you may recall the flurry of controversy when Reagan suggested such a plan for "anti-missile defense." The military are habitually secretive, but since no satellites were shot down or death rained from above, their activities are technically permissible by the treaty. Again, what does any of this to do with Apollo?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Good point, but I ask, are the soviets privy to what the US has actually put into space?
How do we know they didnt put any "death rays" or nukes? If its for peaceful purposes, why are they not being open and honest about it?

As I pointed out, space is not the best place to station nukes. An orbital death ray is perhaps another matter, and you may recall the flurry of controversy when Reagan suggested such a plan for "anti-missile defense." The military are habitually secretive, but since no satellites were shot down or death rained from above, their activities are technically permissible by the treaty. Again, what does any of this to do with Apollo?

Gee, the US media keeps telling me we need space based nukes for asteroids that want to hit our Earth or aliens that want to invade! Screw treaties for national defense, right?!

What does this have to do with Apollo?
You tell me, if you feel that this is not Apollo related, there is plenty other things you can respond to.

reply to post by FoosM

Gee, the US media keeps telling me we need space based nukes for asteroids that want to hit our Earth or aliens that want to invade! Screw treaties for national defense, right?!

Please provide a link to the US media claiming we need "space based nukes" to defend us against aliens or asteroids.

What does this have to do with Apollo?
You tell me, if you feel that this is not Apollo related, there is plenty other things you can respond to.

Need I remind you that you are the one who brought it up? Please explain why anyone should think that this is anything but one of your (usual) diversionary tactics?

Originally posted by FoosM
The US stops other people from having what they have or want to have. Land, WMD, stable economy, wealth, oil, and the list goes on.

Is that why Apollo has you so rankled ? Gotta find a way to throw some mud on the US ? You're welcome to your opinion but it has nothing to do with the facts re: Apollo

Originally posted by FoosM
I think its rather apparent what this has to do with faking the missions.
But you dont like to talk about aspects of history that help make people realize how and why Apollo was fake. Apollo was a military psyop, a jobs program & intelligence.

No it's not apparent. At least not to anyone who hasn't had a lobotomy. You keep making up crap and tossing it out hoping some of it will stick. I can use the same technique to "prove" Apollo was intended to put a man on the Moon using all the same "evil" motivations you've cited.

Originally posted by FoosM
failure is not an option when your spending that kind of money

Nope, so might as well do it right. Why is it so hard for you to believe people can actually do hard things ? Are you so young that you're a byproduct of today's wussified society ?

Originally posted by FoosM
All that detail, even down to the starless skies, no blast crater...

And you're back to starless skies and craters ... even when those half-assed "theories" have been proven to be incredibly stupid and wrong. Ah well horses and water I suppose.

Originally posted by FoosM
Speaking of Apollo 13, was there actually video taken of the damage to the CMS?
I dont recall really seeing much, like a second, or any of it at all (maybe they were just photos being scaled) I find that strange, as if, they couldn't pull off the special effect for debris floating in space. LOL.

Do I recall it properly that you do something related to film or videography ? And you find it strange that a still camera was used and not a videocam ? Do you get paid for what you do ? Pop quiz : which 1960 technology had better resolution, still or video ? Nice try (well, not really) at trying to make up a reason to prop up your obvious lack of understanding.

Originally posted by DJW001 reply to post by FoosM

 

Gee, the US media keeps telling me we need space based nukes for asteroids that want to hit our Earth or aliens that want to invade! Screw treaties for national defense, right?!

Please provide a link to the US media claiming we need "space based nukes" to defend us against aliens or asteroids.

Umm... really? You dont watch disaster movies?

What does this have to do with Apollo? You tell me, if you feel that this is not Apollo related, there is plenty other things you can respond to.

Need I remind you that you are the one who brought it up? Please explain why anyone should think that this is anything but one of your (usual) diversionary tactics?

I told you before DJ, you need to learn how to read carefully, I already explained why I brought up certain topics. If it goes over your head, I cant do anything about it. Better save yourself the trouble and skip to the "easy" stuff, the stuff where you can already copy-pasta prepared answers.

Now you want to explain why I saw two ships floating in that Apollo 13 footage you told me to look at?
And why we didnt see any condensation on the astronaut's breath?


And where is that video of the damaged CMS, with the frosted windows?



Im just not seeing it

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

Gee, the US media keeps telling me we need space based nukes for asteroids that want to hit our Earth or aliens that want to invade! Screw treaties for national defense, right?!

Please provide a link to the US media claiming we need "space based nukes" to defend us against aliens or asteroids.

C'mon man, it was in two movies. I mean if it's on the big screen it's gotta be real. Unless it's a documentary on the US space program, then it's all lies. What's sad is that's there's a huge group of people who see BSG or Armageddon or Deep Impact and think that's actually how things work. Spacecraft zoom about, banking in turns, engines on all the time. There was a time when every 15 year old had a fair idea of how a internal combustion engine worked. Now you find adult males who wouldn't know a sparkplug from a piston from a valve and are quite happy about their ignorance. The world is a magical place where "stuff" just works.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

Gee, the US media keeps telling me we need space based nukes for asteroids that want to hit our Earth or aliens that want to invade! Screw treaties for national defense, right?!

Please provide a link to the US media claiming we need "space based nukes" to defend us against aliens or asteroids.

C'mon man, it was in two movies. I mean if it's on the big screen it's gotta be real. Unless it's a documentary on the US space program, then it's all lies. What's sad is that's there's a huge group of people who see BSG or Armageddon or Deep Impact and think that's actually how things work.

What, you dont think NASA would use nukes to stop and asteroid??

NASA draws up plans for nuke-packing asteroid interceptor

www.engadget.com...

Nuclear weapons could be used to stop earth-bound asteroids, but in most instances, they are not the best option, said Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart during a public lecture this Wednesday in San Francisco. The venerable scientist explained that all but the largest heavenly bodies can be redirected by rear-ending or towing them with an unmanned spacecraft.

But last year, NASA issued a report stating that using nukes is the best strategy to prevent a catastrophic collision with earth. Although Schweickart has a great deal of faith in the agency, enough to risk his life piloting their lunar lander, he feels that they issued the misleading statement — under immense political pressure. It was a nefarious excuse to put nuclear weapons in space.

under immense political pressure. It was a nefarious excuse to put nuclear weapons in space.

Oh NASA

Originally posted by FoosM
What, you dont think NASA would use nukes to stop and asteroid??

I don't think NASA has any nukes to use but I certainly hope that any plans by NASA, or anyone, for planetary defense include the potential use of nukes. To preclude their use, just because they're nukes, is moronically stupid. They have their place in the toolkit of asteroid stoppers. I find Rusty's comment somewhat interesting given he said this at the 2007 Planetary Defense Conference (where the NASA report was presented.

Comments from Rusty Schweickart on asteroid defense strategy:

In the last day of the conference it all came together nicely, integrating much of what we had heard both re deflection options, characterization and the anticipated discovery "demographics". My take on it is that we're now very close to the following:

There will be some cases where impact-threatening NEAs will experience close gravitational encounters (usually with Earth) prior to impact. In most of these cases, due to the multiplication effect of the associated keyhole, the gravity tractor (GT) will be adequate to the job.

If not (e.g. large object and/or "weak" keyhole) then a kinetic impactor (KI) will certainly be adequate. However, since the keyhole makes the uncertainty large, a transponder should be sent ahead to both collapse the line of variations on arrival and also be there for surveying the detailed results of the kinetic impact. Since a gravity tractor also has a transponder aboard, the transponder mission itself should be a GT, which also then has the advantage of not only surveying the final result of the KI but also "trimming" up the deflection with precision to assure (the world) that the deflection did not put the NEO into another keyhole.

Finally, when all else is inadequate, the world will have to make the tough decision of whether to take the chance of a hit or use a nuke. This should be an extremely small component of the overall threat, and a diminishing one over time since the major need for a nuke is the possibility of finding a NEA headed for a near-term impact during the next 15 years of the survey. After that it's only the small remaining component of the residual very large NEAs.

www.spaceref.com...

While this is all very interesting, it's a pretty transparent (and lame) attempt at more muckraking and diversion. Got anything re: Apollo and Moon landings or even pinhead JWs malformed opinion on that?

So whats the answer folks?

Why is there so little media of Apollo 13 available to the public?

They were able to do live transmissions. You would think that the folks down at HQ would want to have a constant live feed of the goings on on that ship. Where is it?

The lack of media regarding Apollo 13 is just crazy.
Take a look at the photos they did make, and notice how little photos of themselves where made:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

They took plenty of beautiful photos of the moon, and other objects in space, but then we wonder,
if it was that cold, how did they keep the windows so crystal clear? Thats a contradiction. You would also think camera lenses would start to collect moisture as well.

Already, the gathering chill and the collective respiration of the three men were causing condensation to form on the walls and windows.

books.google.com... hl=en&ei=jfNBTtSLD5O3tweiqfmSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ

I see "young aussie", then it remind me of Zyzz a little (you can all relate) remind me of better day when sit back and look at spaceship, think of how moon so close and skiing, but never once thought ocean change because it get close/farther.

Science really is something.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
What, you dont think NASA would use nukes to stop and asteroid??

I don't think NASA has any nukes to use but I certainly hope that any plans by NASA, or anyone, for planetary defense include the potential use of nukes.

flip-flop
flip-flop
flip... flop

like a fish out of water

Ok, then! Good point! The best thing to do is make sure countries like Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe, etc all have nukes too, just in case we get invaded by either aliens and or asteroids. When it comes to planetary defense, we should all be armed and vigilant!

reply to post by FoosM

Why is there so little media of Apollo 13 available to the public?

Because they were too busy trying to conserve power, heat and oxygen to waste time taking pictures?

They were able to do live transmissions. You would think that the folks down at HQ would want to have a constant live feed of the goings on on that ship. Where is it?

They did have, in the form of voice and telemetry. Television would have been an unnecessary waste of power.

The lack of media regarding Apollo 13 is just crazy.
Take a look at the photos they did make, and notice how little photos of themselves where made:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you were pretty sure you were going to die a horrible death and no-one would ever be able to recover your body or your camera, would you take pictures of yourself and your crew-mates? As usual, your argument is based on the fallacy that if someone behaves other than the way you would in a given situation, the situation must not have happened.

They took plenty of beautiful photos of the moon, and other objects in space, but then we wonder,
if it was that cold, how did they keep the windows so crystal clear? Thats a contradiction. You would also think camera lenses would start to collect moisture as well.

Already, the gathering chill and the collective respiration of the three men were causing condensation to form on the walls and windows.

Brilliant... no-one would ever think to wipe off the window or camera lens with a cloth before taking a picture. Good thing you weren't in their situation; you'd have taken a lot more photos, and they'd all be fogged up!

Now, please get back to answering this question:

How did they make all those objects seem to float in that tiny, completely enclosed space?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Ok, then! Good point! The best thing to do is make sure countries like Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe, etc all have nukes too, just in case we get invaded by either aliens and or asteroids. When it comes to planetary defense, we should all be armed and vigilant!

No-one here is talking about an alien invasion. The possibility of using a nuclear weapon to deflect or destroy an Earth bound asteroid is a possibility that needs to be taken seriously. Conferences are being held to determine the protocol should the need arise. There is a general consensus that no nation would act independently in such a situation. Given that there would probably be little or no warning, such a planetary defense mission would probably make use of hardware and facilities drawn from several nations; eg, the largest launch ready booster, the most dependable ion engine bus, the best available software, etc. And again: "WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH APOLLO???"

If you were pretty sure you were going to die a horrible death and no-one would ever be able to recover your body or your camera, would you take pictures of yourself and your crew-mates?

Thats why they took photos of the Moon and other nonsense, right?

flip-flop
flip-flop
flip.... flop

Now, please get back to answering this question:

How did they make all those objects seem to float in that tiny, completely enclosed space?

Why? I dont even know what you are talking about.

reply to post by FoosM

Thats why they took photos of the Moon and other nonsense, right?

Yes, because taking photos of the Moon was part of the mission, remember? Even in crisis mode, they attempted to complete as much of the mission as possible.

Why? I dont even know what you are talking about.

If you had bothered to view the 16mm films that you requested, you could not help but notice that in all the interior scenes there are pens, clipboards, camera, etc, floating around the cabin. How exactly did they fake that? After all, even the great Stanley Kubrick only showed one object floating in a cabin in 2001. A pen was suspended in a sheet of glass. Is that the technique they used on Apollo?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by FoosM
What, you dont think NASA would use nukes to stop and asteroid??

I don't think NASA has any nukes to use but I certainly hope that any plans by NASA, or anyone, for planetary defense include the potential use of nukes.

flip-flop
flip-flop
flip... flop

like a fish out of water

What are you ranting about now ? And how does the future use (or not) of nukes to stop asteroids have any relationship to the history of Apollo some 40+ years ago ? The only flopping I see is you trying to squirm your way out of staying on topic.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, then! Good point! The best thing to do is make sure countries like Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe, etc all have nukes too, just in case we get invaded by either aliens and or asteroids. When it comes to planetary defense, we should all be armed and vigilant!

When Iran, Korea (I assume you mean the DPRK) and Zimbabwe have shown any capability or interest in planetary defense we can discuss that (in another thread). In this thread that topic is irrelevant.

Originally posted by DJW001 reply to post by FoosM

 

Thats why they took photos of the Moon and other nonsense, right?

Yes, because taking photos of the Moon was part of the mission, remember? Even in crisis mode, they attempted to complete as much of the mission as possible.

Contrast this for effect:

If you were pretty sure you were going to die a horrible death and no-one would ever be able to recover your body or your camera, would you take pictures...

Flip-flop
Flip-flop
Flip... flop

Why? I dont even know what you are talking about.

If you had bothered to view the 16mm films that you requested, you could not help but notice that in all the interior scenes there are pens, clipboards, camera, etc, floating around the cabin. How exactly did they fake that? After all, even the great Stanley Kubrick only showed one object floating in a cabin in 2001. A pen was suspended in a sheet of glass. Is that the technique they used on Apollo?

Why should I answer this question, when you failed to address mine? I spoke about floating objects in space. multiple ships, lack of condensation on astronaut's breath. You come back floating objects with interior shots that can be easily done in LEO or done in similar manner as they did the Apollo 13 the movie? I mean what is this silly distraction all about?