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: 545
377
<< 542  543  544    546  547  548 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

As the CSM orbitted over Russia it would have easily be seen and tracked in real time.


You mean "if the csm orbitted over Russia"...

"if"

You seriously oughtta give into your desire to be intellectually honest - it is rewarding.


I'm not sure what your objection is. Let's recall the conversation shall we. You said :

They couldn't have blown the whistle if they wanted to.
which prompted my response

It depends on which hoax theory you subscribe to. Theories (and I misuse the term) that have the astronauts staying in the CM and in LEO while some unmanned satellites go to the Moon ... yes they could have blown the whistle on that.
I've bolded the part you should have paid attention to. You requested

Describe how.
So I did. I don't know if you don't understand that the conditional statement I've bolded above has the same meaning as the "if" you seem to think is missing or if you don't understand that any LEO must, as a result of known laws of physics, go over part of Russia during the week+ of an Apollo mission. Please explain how, in any way, it is that I've been dishonest.




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife


Originally posted by FoosM
As well, are you saying there werent any whistleblowers during the Apollo program?
Or people who quit out of frustration?

Give me the list of spacecraft design, test, etc personnel who have cried "foul" because the CM or LM wasn't up to the task. It doesn't even have to be the radiation task.

See that people. He wants a "list"
One person is not enough.
10 people wouldnt be enough probably.
He probably wants to hear a complaint from every single NASA employee to convince him
that there was something wrong with the machines.

Could you explain how any of the material you posted supports a your claim that Apollo was incapable of going to the Moon. Was there someone who claimed the design had inadequate radiation sheilding ? Was there someone who claimed that the guidance system would be unable to make land a LM on the Moon ? That the rocket engines didn't have enough ISP to put the stack into orbit or make it to the Moon ? Or any such similar objection ? Because what you've posted is a list of quality problems, not design flaws which might fundamentally demonstrate that the spacecraft would not be able to do their function. Recall your claim of how the Apollo design would have resulted in the death of the astronauts if they had crossed the VABs. What I'm asking for is the analysis that shows the design can not do what's been purported to have been done. What I'm asking for is are credible people to make those type of statements.

And how many of these quality problems remained after the Apollo 1 fire and redesign of hardware ? How was Grissoms death "convenient" for NASA ? I'd have said the whole Apollo1 fire was both and embarrassment and setback for the program. Your use of the term "convenient" implies to me you just might be one of those who think that the fire was set purpose to kill Grissom. Is that your claim ? Also how do you claim whistleblower status for JFK ? The paragraph just after the one you posted has some good advice :

But words such as “might” and “possibly” do not simply add, they multiply uncertainty. If one is to conduct counterfactual history in a proper way, the goal is to illuminate what did happen, not get carried away with speculating about what did not. Leave that to the fiction writers.

Please try to make some distinction between what you claim as fact and what you think might, maybe, possibly have happened if ... if ... if How was JFK a whistleblower and please try to make it something related to Apollo.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
. What I'm asking for is the analysis that shows the design can not do what's been purported to have been done. What I'm asking for is are credible people to make those type of statements.


I guess I overestimated you. I said before you should be intelligent enough to answer all these questions yourself.
What you are asking is akin to NASA publicly admitting why they faked it. Would that make sense? If they are willing to kill people to keep the scam secret, why would they spill the beans to the public? That makes no sense!



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
The question is, if tomorrow the government itself announced the venture never happened, would the experts looking at the huge amount of material available, be able to deduce that there was a mismatch between information about the hardware used, and the information available about the radiation environment in the Earth / Moon vicinity. For that matter would interested amateurs ?
Wrong question. The question is "does the evidence support the government's claim?" You're assuming that the government will be believed unquestioningly, despite the sudden reversal on their party line of forty-two years to date that's been checked and quadruple-checked for longer than many of the HBs have been alive.
edit on 2011/8/20 by 000063 because: +



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

And we have said it before.
Is that all you have?
Because all you have is baseless speculation.
Which you aren't actually making any affirmative points against, I note.


You dont know what the US had on the USSR.
You dont even know if they were working together the whole time.
You dont know what deals the US and USSR made.
Ladies and gents, a textbook Argument from Ignorance. In response, I would like to say that we don't know if any of those things even existed. US blackmail material, whether the two nations were working together, or what secret deals were struck.

I do question the entire need for a hoax if the US if the US and USSR were secretly working together in any fashion, though.



In his famed threat to capitalism in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev thundered "We will bury you." He has since insisted that Communism would win in an economic rather than a thermonuclear sense. But last week Khrushchev had to seek U.S. help to prevent his own economy from being buried. A Soviet trade mission asked to buy about $170 million's worth of U.S. wheat.

www.time.com...

Thats about as good reason as any to keep your mouth shut when your people are starving.
Which doesn't make sense if they could've just blackmailed the US for more wheat, as you seem to be implying. The Russians sank billions into their space project, just like the US did. They are not going to be paid off by a few hundred million worth of wheat, not when there's a much greater long-term gain to be made by exposing America.



You dont know anything that went on except what they want you to know.
Argument from ignorance again. Incidentally, your use of the present tense implies the bad guys have somehow managed to keep their deception nearly airtight for over forty years now.



So speculations does not = to fact.
Nor does "we don't know what they did!!1!"


You know what the Americans would tell the Russians if they announced the moon landing was fake?
They would say, "Prove it. Prove it with your failed N1, you bitter basterds"
At which point the USSR would produce their reams of scientific data in open court, embarrassing the US immensely. Heck, all they would need to do is just publish it in neutral or communist scientific journals. Or newspapers. It would likely be the story of the century.

None of your nonsense washes. Russia would either expose or blackmail the US. The closest thing you have to evidence to the contrary is ye olde Wheat Deal, and the same baseless speculation you decried about a deal you admitted we have no proof of the existence of.


Originally posted by MacTheKnife
And how has the US Govt managed to silence you ? You're not employed nor beholden to NASA or the US. What possible influence could be exerted on you (or your ilk) to silence you from spreading the "truth" ?
I always like it when Conspiracy Theorists say the gov't has silenced everyone, and then someone points out that there's a CT movement in the first place. The whistleblowers could just go to them, a network of un-suppressible people who would love to tell everyone about it.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
And we have said it before.
Is that all you have?
Because all you have is baseless speculation.
Which you aren't actually making any affirmative points against, I note.


You dont know what the US had on the USSR.
You dont even know if they were working together the whole time.
You dont know what deals the US and USSR made.
Ladies and gents, a textbook Argument from Ignorance. In response, I would like to say that we don't know if any of those things even existed. US blackmail material, whether the two nations were working together, or what secret deals were struck.

I do question the entire need for a hoax if the US if the US and USSR were secretly working together in any fashion, though.



In his famed threat to capitalism in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev thundered "We will bury you." He has since insisted that Communism would win in an economic rather than a thermonuclear sense. But last week Khrushchev had to seek U.S. help to prevent his own economy from being buried. A Soviet trade mission asked to buy about $170 million's worth of U.S. wheat.

www.time.com...

Thats about as good reason as any to keep your mouth shut when your people are starving.
Which doesn't make sense if they could've just blackmailed the US for more wheat, as you seem to be implying. The Russians sank billions into their space project, just like the US did. They are not going to be paid off by a few hundred million worth of wheat, not when there's a much greater long-term gain to be made by exposing America.



You dont know anything that went on except what they want you to know.
Argument from ignorance again. Incidentally, your use of the present tense implies the bad guys have somehow managed to keep their deception nearly airtight for over forty years now.



So speculations does not = to fact.
Nor does "we don't know what they did!!1!"


You know what the Americans would tell the Russians if they announced the moon landing was fake?
They would say, "Prove it. Prove it with your failed N1, you bitter basterds"
At which point the USSR would produce their reams of scientific data in open court, embarrassing the US immensely. Heck, all they would need to do is just publish it in neutral or communist scientific journals. Or newspapers. It would likely be the story of the century.

None of your nonsense washes. Russia would either expose or blackmail the US. The closest thing you have to evidence to the contrary is ye olde Wheat Deal, and the same baseless speculation you decried about a deal you admitted we have no proof of the existence of.


Originally posted by MacTheKnife
And how has the US Govt managed to silence you ? You're not employed nor beholden to NASA or the US. What possible influence could be exerted on you (or your ilk) to silence you from spreading the "truth" ?
I always like it when Conspiracy Theorists say the gov't has silenced everyone, and then someone points out that there's a CT movement in the first place. The whistleblowers could just go to them, a network of un-suppressible people who would love to tell everyone about it.
edit on 2011/8/20 by 000063 because: -



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Exuberant1

Incidentally, you will notice that I acknowledge when I make a mistake. Has FoosM ever done that?
I seem to recall him admitting to misspelling something once.

Just once.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife


Originally posted by FoosM
As well, are you saying there werent any whistleblowers during the Apollo program?
Or people who quit out of frustration?

Give me the list of spacecraft design, test, etc personnel who have cried "foul" because the CM or LM wasn't up to the task. It doesn't even have to be the radiation task.


See that people. He wants a "list"
One person is not enough.
10 people wouldnt be enough probably.
Considering that thousands of people worked for NASA, probably not, unless they had some really good evidence.

I note that you haven't even provided that one whistleblower.


He probably wants to hear a complaint from every single NASA employee to convince him
that there was something wrong with the machines.

But dude, this has been well known:
Affirming the Consequent.



Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. He had made observations; had collected gossip, rumor, and critical comments from his fellow employees; and had written a set of condemnatory notes. He had detailed, but not documented, difficulties with persons, parts, equipment, and procedures. Baron had observed the faults of a large-scale organization and apparently had performed his job as a quality inspector with a vengeance. He noted poor workmanship, spacecraft 012 contamination, discrepancies with installations, problems in the environmental control system, and many infractions of cleanliness and safety rules.

Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.


So after Baron was immediately eliminated by either fortune or foul play, this helped shut any opportunity for further whistle blowing regarding NASA. And that list... well that list of persons was probably used against those who spoke up.
What "list"? You've got one guy!


Besides Baron there was of course Bill Kaysing and Gus Grissom (also a complainer who conveniently died)
Not convenient for him, I'll bet.


And lets not forget one of the biggest murdered whistleblower:
Was the murder ever proven? Because the "magic bullet" was reproducible with contemporary weapons and ammo.







Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries—indeed of all the world—cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries


Several historians have speculated that Kennedy wanted an Apollo landing to occur during a possible second term, and it is clear that NASA’s original goal was a Moon landing by 1967, most likely based upon the assumption that the Soviets would also try to achieve a space spectacular by the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. But in 1963 Kennedy already knew that Apollo would become incredibly expensive by any potential second term. It is possible that if he lived and headed into an election year, Kennedy might have sought to delay the schedule so that the peak budget years occurred later, or were spread out. Kennedy’s thinking might also have been influenced by CIA intelligence data that in 1964 indicated that the Soviets were not undertaking a crash effort to race the Americans to the Moon.

In fact, one intriguing question is whether or not Kennedy’s UN speech may have actually led the Soviets to not take Apollo seriously. Perhaps someday a scholar digging through Soviet-era archives will locate a KGB or Politburo analysis of Kennedy’s United Nations speech.



Clearly there was much doubt that Apollo was possible.
The Soviets, gave the US a 25% for Apollo 8.

www.thespacereview.com...
I like how you think the US was lying, yet the USSR would never BS, yet they wouldn't be believed even if they did produce evidence of a hoax. Contradictory positions.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
. What I'm asking for is the analysis that shows the design can not do what's been purported to have been done. What I'm asking for is are credible people to make those type of statements.


I guess I overestimated you. I said before you should be intelligent enough to answer all these questions yourself.
What you are asking is akin to NASA publicly admitting why they faked it. Would that make sense? If they are willing to kill people to keep the scam secret, why would they spill the beans to the public? That makes no sense.
No, he's asking if anyone, anyone at all, who is credible has written such an analysis. Not NASA. Anyone.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
The question is, if tomorrow the government itself announced the venture never happened, would the experts looking at the huge amount of material available, be able to deduce that there was a mismatch between information about the hardware used, and the information available about the radiation environment in the Earth / Moon vicinity. For that matter would interested amateurs ?



Originally posted by 000063
Wrong question. The question is "does the evidence support the government's claim?" You're assuming that the government will be believed unquestioningly, despite the sudden reversal on their party line of forty-two years to date that's been checked and quadruple-checked for longer than many of the HBs have been alive.
edit on 2011/8/20 by 000063 because: +


One is sort of a test for the other. You could paraphrase my thought experiment as "Does NASA have a claim ( extant body of evidence ) that can be analyzed on its own merits as to whether the implemented spacecraft design ( as per NASA design specs ) could withstand the radiation environment beyond LEO ( as per any credible analysis of that environment ( CRaTER results or the like ) at the time of Apollo or since.

If the answer is in the affirmative, as Mac assures me it is, then since it is in fact subject to analysis ( not actually a given that it is ) the next question becomes the one you brought forward "Does the evidence support NASA's claim ?"

The bit about the government stating categorically it was a hoax, is just a way of saying that If the onus were to shift to viewing all existing evidence as evidence that was falsely put forward to support a claim, and therefore the nature of the scrutiny of it were to shift to one of assessing whether in fact clues existed that COULD HAVE BEEN SPOTTED AHEAD OF TIME IF ONE HAD KNOWN WHERE TO LOOK, then would there be sufficient evidence available to find either agreement between the claim ( spacecraft design sufficient for the claimed task ) or a mismatch between the claim and the evidence ( spacecraft design not sufficient for the claimed task ). Note this has nothing to do with the credibility or perceived credibility of the source making the claim. Credibility or even the truth of the statements made are not being called into evidence ... just info about the vessel and the radiation sea, under these specific viewing conditions.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
. What I'm asking for is the analysis that shows the design can not do what's been purported to have been done. What I'm asking for is are credible people to make those type of statements.

I guess I overestimated you. I said before you should be intelligent enough to answer all these questions yourself. What you are asking is akin to NASA publicly admitting why they faked it. Would that make sense? If they are willing to kill people to keep the scam secret, why would they spill the beans to the public? That makes no sense!

No I'm not asking that "NASA spill the beans". What I'm asking for is some person, perhaps from NASA, perhaps not, who has some credibility on the topic he professes to know, speak up and present irrefutable facts that the spacecraft used could not, in any way, shape or form, have brought man to the Moon. You've commented before how the Apollo CM was inadequate to get past the VABs due to radiation. Suffice it to say you're no expert on the matter (that's not intended as a slam, few would be experts, I am not as well). Your opinion (or JWs) on this matter is not proof. What would be proof is either a detailed analysis that could be followed, or replicated, by almost anyone or a concurrence of expert opinion with a statement saying "the CM was inadequately sheilded". Those opinions or that analysis need not come from NASA. They (or it) could come from other parties just reviewing the public data package NASA claims is true. Those parties are simply judging whether NASAs statements are consistent with known facts. NASA "spilled the beans" when the data re: Apollo became public. You should be asking why that data is public considering it could be incriminating. Does that have the hallmarks of a good conspiracy ?

Now should I take it from your post above (I've underlined) that you believe NASA has killed people to keep the hoax a secret ? Or are you stating some hypothetical point ?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Check this out. Jarrah White's new website is up and running! It has an intro too.

www.moonfaker.com...

Here is his extensive FAQ page that answers key questions about the moon hoax with scientific factual precision and logic.

www.moonfaker.com...

Interviews with Jarrah White that you can download:

www.moonfaker.com...

Here are some funny comic strips from his site.





Jarrah's YouTube Channel:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
[silly video link removed,see it above]


So do you care to go over the allegations made in the video you posted ... one by one ? I'm very sure they've all been disproven in this very thread, perhaps hundreds of posts ago, but if you're willing ... I'm game to go and look up all those posts. How about we start with the whole "stars" claim ? That one was shown to be stupid not that long ago. Do you understand why "stars" aren't easily visible in photographs ? Do you have some counter argument as to why those reasons are invalid ?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?
A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.


Oh this again. I'd hate to point out that it would've been 100% impossible to do those videos and photos back on earth. Just to point out the most blatantly obvious thing is how is it that they simulate the behaviour of everything else besides the astronauts in 1/6th gravity? Is each dust particle also suspended with wires?

I cant believe I actually cliked on that link btw... I feel less alive.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Check this out. Jarrah White's new website is up and running! It has an intro too.
Here is his extensive FAQ page that answers key questions about the moon hoax with scientific factual precision and logic.


I find your usage of "factual", "precision" and "logic" to be most amusing. Thanks for the laughs ! Would this be the proper place and time to take each stupid claim and show how it's deficient ?

How about this one : (from JW's FAQ)

Meanwhile the Saturn V was launched unmanned and jettisoned into the South Atlantic. All the voices and videos came from scripted pre-recorded tapes that the NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) relayed over the landlines to Houston. An unmanned cislunar probe was used to broadcast identical signals for any independent party who tried to listen in.

How large and encompassing must the hoax have been to account for Apollo13 ?
edit on 20/8/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by WWu777
 



Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?
A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.

Oh this again. I'd hate to point out that it would've been 100% impossible to do those videos and photos back on earth. Just to point out the most blatantly obvious thing is how is it that they simulate the behaviour of everything else besides the astronauts in 1/6th gravity? Is each dust particle also suspended with wires?

I cant believe I actually cliked on that link btw... I feel less alive.

How did those NASA tricksters edit out those wires ? Did I say wires ... I meant rigs and wires ...because to replicate the actual effect of 1/6 G you'd need to pull the faux astronauts up through their center of mass. And that ain't the places where the antenna/wires cited are. And you'd need to provide that constant up force regardless of the "lean" of the astronaut. How big would the rig needed to do that be ? You can get some idea from the rigs used by various acrobatic exihibtions.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Hello, sorry for the long absence.

Sometimes when an argument goes around in circles it's best to reduce it back to the basics.

For instance why is it so hard to accomplish simple tasks in space today, when 40 years ago they achieved them with ease.

Today there is a very real concern about breaking off a hand rail on the Hubble and how it could impact / rupture a suit. 40 years ago there was no such concern. They bounded about, fell over, pushed the rover to the limits.

If you add up the incidents that could have caused a potential rupture of a suit, you'll run out of fingers and toes.

All I can suggest is watch these vids of Hubble's Amazing Rescue and then question why we have trouble removing 12 screws in low earth orbit today....

but 40 years ago they were drilling the surface, chipping rocks, playing golf, driving the buggy, setting up numerous experiments, planting 6 flags, calibrating the antennas and taking thousands of photographs. etc. etc.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.






posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by bansheegirl
The question is, if tomorrow the government itself announced the venture never happened, would the experts looking at the huge amount of material available, be able to deduce that there was a mismatch between information about the hardware used, and the information available about the radiation environment in the Earth / Moon vicinity. For that matter would interested amateurs ?
Wrong question. The question is "does the evidence support the government's claim?" You're assuming that the government will be believed unquestioningly, despite the sudden reversal on their party line of forty-two years to date that's been checked and quadruple-checked for longer than many of the HBs have been alive.
edit on 2011/8/20 by 000063 because: +


The evidence does not support the government claim.
And thats why a formal investigation has to be initiated.
The problem with this lie is that so many people just want to keep believing in it, which
helps the government keep the lie going.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Was the murder ever proven? Because the "magic bullet" was reproducible with contemporary weapons and ammo.


I dont want to go off topic, but I have to address this in the context of debaters who want so badly to be right, they dont think before they respond. And this is the problem with having a smart conversation about the moon landing hoax.

000063, are you saying that JFK was not murdered?
That the shots weren't meant for him, but his head happened to get in the way of the bullets?

Think about this before you answer.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 542  543  544    546  547  548 >>

log in

join