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: 546
377
<< 543  544  545    547  548  549 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by 000063

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.


Credible?
I like how you snuck that word in.
So you could attack their credibility vs the evidence they presented.
Thats why I said, you guys like to kill the messenger if the message goes against your world view.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

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 ?


I've answered these questions before.
If you want to claim that equipment used by Apollo made it impossible for them to take photos of stars, then we can have a debate. If you cant claim this, then there is nothing to debate about. You will have to admit that if the Astronauts wanted to take photos of the stars, they could have. I say its stupefying that no conventional photos where taken of the stars after six missions. Thats all. It goes against the credibility of Apollo because there is no good excuse for not doing so.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You will have to admit that if the Astronauts wanted to take photos of the stars, they could have


And, as I know you know, they did:







Note the trailing due to the long exposure time necessary to photograph stars. Why must you keep bringing the same ridiculous arguments up over and over and over?



www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't make me post "that photo" again!
edit on 21-8-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Hello, sorry for the long absence.


Welcome back! Did you bring the .EXIF data for that photo you posted that violates the laws of optics?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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


You mean bring up the same points yet again?


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


Astronauts were unable to accomplish complicated EVA tasks in micro-gravity 40 years ago. This is why Skylab was sent up pre-assembled. Astronauts have since learned how to perform construction in orbit, a stupendous accomplishment.


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.


In spacesuits specifically designed to withstand such abuse. If you read Michael Collins' account of his EVA on Gemini 10, you would know that jagged metal is particularly dangerous. There was no jagged metal on the lunar surface.


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


Did they fall onto any jagged metal? Or just dust and smooth rock?


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....


Because in the microgravity of Earth orbit, attempting to turn a screw generates torque in the opposite direction, causing the astronaut to turn in the opposite direction of the screw! Further, since there is no gravity, there is no friction to assist them. As I pointed out earlier, they were unable to solve these problems forty years ago. It was one of the mission goals of Skylab to develop these techniques.


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


On the surface of the Moon, where they had gravity to help them..


Makes you wonder doesn't it.


No... or were you just being rhetorical?
edit on 21-8-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
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.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.





The simple answer is that 40 years ago space walking was different.
It was a simpler time, when men where men & women were at home waiting for men.
I mean if you wanted to peel off the paint of your space ship, it didnt matter.
There was no consequences. If you wanted to exclaim "hot diggity dog" while propelling yourself out the port hatch in deep space. You were free to do so. Houston didnt care.



Now with modern governmental regulations and restrictions, you even need torque inhibitor on your screw driver to turn some over-priced screw. They want to stop men from screwing too fast. Be careful with that bolt! How can a real man get on top of things and get any work done these days?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I have discussed the moon hoax debate with friends and colleagues in the military for over 12 years, watched relevant films, debated online and read books and most of this thread also and there is something that just will not change.

No matter how much documentation and NASA fact is released, no matter how many verifiable witnesses attest, a moon hoax believer will always remain a moon hoax believer and a moon landing believer will always be a liar, an idiot or both!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



You will have to admit that if the Astronauts wanted to take photos of the stars, they could have


And, as I know you know, they did:

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh, so now you want to claim those were taken from the Moon's surface?

DJ knows, because we discussed this earlier in this thread, that taking long exposures from the moon would have been ideal for astrophotography due to the fact the moon turns slow. I dont know why he would want to post pictures that could have been taken from LEO. For that matter, we cant even tell those are stars in the photos. What he does present though is that, technically, photos could have been taken from the moon's surface with the equipment that Apollo had. Why they chose not to do so is stupefying; if you believe they went to the moon.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


In spacesuits specifically designed to withstand such abuse. If you read Michael Collins' account of his EVA on Gemini 10, you would know that jagged metal is particularly dangerous. There was no jagged metal on the lunar surface.



I would disagree DJ. The equipment they used, even their lunar buggy all could potentially be dangerous to their suits.





posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
DJ knows, because we discussed this earlier in this thread, that taking long exposures from the moon would have been ideal for astrophotography due to the fact the moon turns slow. I dont know why he would want to post pictures that could have been taken from LEO. For that matter, we cant even tell those are stars in the photos. What he does present though is that, technically, photos could have been taken from the moon's surface with the equipment that Apollo had. Why they chose not to do so is stupefying; if you believe they went to the moon.

What's stupefying is how you persist in posting that because someone doesn't do what you think they should, that's somehow evidence of a hoax. You've yet to answer how astrophotography from the Moon with the equipment they had available (or could have had) would be better, heck as good as, that done from the Earth. Just how big a telescope would they have needed to bring to make a scientifically worthwhile attempt ? With the camera's they had for the rest of the mission objectives what useful photo's could have been taken ? Anyone with digital camera can set their ISO speed to something in the range of what they had and try to handhold for a shot of the stars tonight. Go ahead and give it a try. If you get something aesthetically pleasing ... good for you ! Now tell me what scientific value it has. Put that digicam on a tripod and give it a shot. Tell us what the result is. And again anyone can do this tonight (if the skies are clear).
And how would photos from the Moon differ from those taken in LEO ? While the rotation rate of the Moon is less than that of the Earth, how is this a determining factor in astrophotography ? Telescopes on the Earth cancel the Earth's rotation, they have to inorder to get long duration exposures. Same would still be true on the Moon. And the Hubble doesn't seem to have much trouble, it orbits the Earth with a shorter period than that of the Moon.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMWhat he does present though is that, technically, photos could have been taken from the moon's surface with the equipment that Apollo had.
It's not stupifying when you realize that there was no conventional astrophotography they could do from the lunar surface that couldn't be done better from the surface of the Earth, where it is much easier and cheaper.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I would disagree DJ. The equipment they used, even their lunar buggy all could potentially be dangerous to their suits.


We've been through this before. Those are teflon clips that held the deployment lanyard.


Originally posted by FoosM
Can you please point out what you find dangerous about tires and a handle? It helps when you offer your own commentary, rather than just linking to images and videos. Also, be sure to include the image numbers.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
Those are teflon clips that held the deployment lanyard.

But but but that material is well know for it's cutting power. You see it used all the time in axe heads and saw blades and surgical scapels. The grit on sandpaper is made from itty bitty pieces of the nasty stuff. It'll cut through a spacesuit like a light saber through a ton-ton's underbelly.

Oh wait ... did you say Teflon ?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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.

I meant bansheegirl's hypothetical claim, from the hypothetical government, going "Welp, it was all faked. All of it." If such a hypothetical claim was made, it's immediately going to be fact-checked by just about any scientist with a relevant sheepskin in the world. BansheeGirl's mistake was in assuming that it would automatically be accepted, despite contradicting claims and evidence that have stood up for forty-plus years.

Of course, your grasp of basic grammar seems to be on the same level as your grasp of astral photography, dietary needs, orbital mechanics, engineering, radiation, and a host of other subjects.

reply to post by FoosM
 


It's in the original post, FoosM. MacTheKnife clearly said "credible people". It's in the post you quoted.

Speaking of putting words in people's mouth, how is it that Mac said "credible people who performed such an analysis", and you heard "any sort of employee leaving NASA". And then you linked to Baron, who was actually a worker for NAA, NASA's contractor. You strawmanned Mac's request. Then you had to straw man your straw man, which just takes my breath away.

www.clavius.org...

I'd like to point out that a train is pretty much the most inefficient and messy ground-based method of killing someone. It is literally on rails, with little flexibility, and a limited amount of locations to dispose of evidence.

Also, Baron testified to Congress about Apollo 1, as well as a subcommittee. If anyone was supposed to rub him out before he spoke up, they did a really, really poor job.


Originally posted by FoosM

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.
That you're in it?


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.
Let me make this as clear as possible. I do not believe that JFK was killed by some sort of nefarious US government criminal conspiracy, with or without some sort of "magic bullet", as I interpreted your post as saying. I think he was killed by some nutjob, in the book repository, with the rifle.

Getting back to a point you seem to be trying to ignore; if there's a deal with Russia--and that assumes Russia will be the only people with evidence contradicting NASA, ever--then there's no real need for the space program. They could just have Russia pretend to have a space program, while the US works on their own program for real. And we know the Russian program was a failure. Of course, the few hundred mil for the wheat deal is a pittance compared to the billions of dollars the Russians were burning, but this argument assumes the Russians were total idiots in the first place, among other things.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


In other words, there is no possible way you're wrong.

Thank you for exposing your utter lack of objectivity and falsifiability.


Originally posted by MacTheKnife
What's stupefying is how you persist in posting that because someone doesn't do what you think they should, that's somehow evidence of a hoax.
I especially liked when he said that the guys wouldn't have pooped in a bag because he wouldn't poop in a bag.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh, so now you want to claim those were taken from the Moon's surface?


Did I say these photos were taken from the Moon's surface? No, they were too busy taking advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to take pictures of something they could best study from the Moon: the Moon!



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

BansheeGirl's mistake was in assuming that it would automatically be accepted, despite contradicting claims and evidence that have stood up for forty-plus years.


Yup, my bad.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
What's stupefying is how you persist in posting that because someone doesn't do what you think they should, that's somehow evidence of a hoax.
I especially liked when he said that the guys wouldn't have pooped in a bag because he wouldn't poop in a bag.

And had some Apollo astronaut aimed some camera skyward and taken some picture with stars in it what would likely be the HB'er claim ? It's not like this photo has convinced them that travel past the VABs is possible.

So I find the whole "they should have taken pics to prove to me that they were there" bleating to ring just a tad hollow.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMWhat he does present though is that, technically, photos could have been taken from the moon's surface with the equipment that Apollo had.
It's not stupifying when you realize that there was no conventional astrophotography they could do from the lunar surface that couldn't be done better from the surface of the Earth, where it is much easier and cheaper.


According to you, they were already on the moon and went several times, so its stupefying.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh, so now you want to claim those were taken from the Moon's surface?


Did I say these photos were taken from the Moon's surface? No, they were too busy taking advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to take pictures of something they could best study from the Moon: the Moon!


Well thats what were were talking about. So why would you interject a distraction?
And yes, a once in a lifetime opportunity and they didnt take photos of the heavens as part of the moon, as in using it as a perspective of being there. They bothered to take photos of the Earth, they could have bothered to do stars as well. And if it was an issue of over exposing the land vs the stars, they could have used split filters.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


Originally posted by FoosM
Can you please point out what you find dangerous about tires and a handle? It helps when you offer your own commentary, rather than just linking to images and videos. Also, be sure to include the image numbers.



Come on man, common sense, its a photo I reused from earlier in the thread. The circles have nothing to do with this current discussion. The circles were showing that there were no tracks left by the MET. But if it was confusing, sorry. All you have to do is look at the MET and all the pointy objects and sharp edges, just like the rover. But the whole issue that DJ brought up is a distraction.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 543  544  545    547  548  549 >>

log in

join