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: 577
377
<< 574  575  576    578  579  580 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Where's the international press conference? All we see here is a TV talk show designed for a TV audience. There is a lot of CBS, ABC, NBC video on youtube. I'm surprised there is such a difficult time finding some actual press conferences for A12-A17.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The question at issue is why NASA is torturing monkeys in June of 1969 when Apollo 8 had already showed humans going to the moon and back...? The A8 astronauts returned in superb health did they not?


Because Apollo 8 and 10 astronauts did not LAND on the moon


Continuing along that line...

What was the scientific justification for Biosatellite III? Biosatellite III Launched 29 June 1969 - mission cancelled and returned 7 July 1969 after 8.8 days. Apogee: 374 km (232 mi). Perigee: 363 km (225 mi).

Gemini 5 - August 21-29, 1965 was successfully tested at the 350km for 7 days!
Gemini 7 - December 4-18, 1965 was successfully tested at the 327km for 13 days!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Biosat III - there you go.

Need anything more??



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


do Aldrin's post flight personal problems have any relevance to whether he visited the mon or not??


Yes of course. He is not a machine.
As much as someone suffering from PTSD is relevant. It points to something traumatic having occurred.


Yes...and??

Either he landed on the moon.....or he did not.

Having PTSD doesn't change which one of those is true. Nor does not having it.

As evidence for or against a moon landing it is irrelevant. Are you smokescreening your inability to come up with real evidence again??


We have astronauts leaving NASA soon after their moon trips. Why didnt they stay?


Because the manned missions were over (Shuttle astronauts are currently leaving in droves....), a younger crowd woudl be used for the next ones (some of them were pushing 50 by 1971,....), they could make a lot of money on the speaking circuit, as executives for aerospace companies, returned to the USAF, became professors, being an astronaut is extremely invasive of private life, etc.?


Support the cause, be ambassadors for more missions?



Who says they didn't support hte cause & be ambassadors for more missions?? Buzz Aldrin actively supports more manned missions to the moon



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Biosat III - there you go.

Need anything more??



Yes. How about a compelling scientific need for the 5 counts of animal cruelty? Gemini had already been successful with 10 manned human missions. How do ANY of the Biosat III experiments improve on the Gemini mission data? They don't. It's Frankenstein Science....


MISSION PROFILE: Biosatellite III
Mission Duration: 9 days
Date: June 28 - July 7, 1969
Life Sciences Research Objectives
To study space flight effects on brain states, behavior, fluid and electrolyte balance, metabolism, and the cardiovascular system

Despite the failure of the mission's scientific agenda.......



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Yes. How about a compelling scientific need for the 5 counts of animal cruelty?


Do you eat meat?



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

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Im sure any country or newspaper that wrote articles dismissing the moon landings as fake, was probably put under pressure by the US.


Please provide some evidence for this opinion. Most countries weren't exactly bending over backwards to please the USA in those days.
Such as, off the top of my head, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I hear they didn't like the US much.


Why didn't the USSR like USA? Did they ever fight a war head to head?

Do you see how your combined comments above falls far, far short of any credible analysis?


edit on 9/10/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)
My point was that the USSR was more than capable of exposing the US if they had faked a moon mission. Why they did not like the US is largely irrelevant, and if you would like to know the answer, find any book on the Cold War.

I note that neither you or FoosM ever answered DJ's request.


Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


You are actually claiming that the cold war never happened? It was all faked then? You have any proof or are you just typing random things hoping noone notices???
It's the 'oil slick' debating tactic. Pump out enough crap and hope your opponent skids away from the points you don't want to discuss.

I got the name from Mario Kart.
edit on 2011/9/21 by 000063 because: +


The thread has touched on the Cold War many times. Perhaps you missed all of those posts about the Cold War, Gulf of Tonkin, Viet Nam & Nixon which helped to provide some real historical context to the Apollo Propaganda Program. DJ was also a participant in that discussion on more than one occassion.

Because DJW001 was a valuable part of that discussion I didn't see the need to answer any of DJW001's rhetorical questions. My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Gulf of Tonkin,


ding ding ding! Now, please answer the question: do you or do you not eat meat?
edit on 21-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Yes. How about a compelling scientific need for the 5 counts of animal cruelty?


Do you eat meat?


Nice try!
Denied!


I'm still waiting for someone to present a compelling scientific need for the 5 counts of animal cruelty funded by NASA during the Apollo-era. Most of the Gemini's were in the 0-3 day range, but the program had put humans into LEO for up to 7 and 14 days. That was James Webb's NASA. Methodical, scientific, pushing the boundaries of human space flight step by step.

Remember? Webb resigned from NASA in late '68 and the headlines shouted "WEBB QUITS NASA". Webb made it pretty clear in the newspapers that the USA was #2 in the space race.

The monkey torturing events took place in 1969 under a different regime. This was Thomas O Paine's NASA... and Nixon's NASA... not James Webb's NASA. This is why we have to keep revisiting the historical context because Apollogists won't accept the facts.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Let's get back to business. How wet were the Apollo moon rocks? 25ppm? 50ppm? 100ppm? 250ppm? more?? And why are modern, NASA-funded lunar scientists raising questions about the "provenance" of Apollo moon rock samples at their NASA-funded lunar science conventions?

Jarrah White has connected the dots. True skeptics & Apollogists should review his material because it represents good documentary research; all of the main exhibits are shown clearly; there is never any question that Jarrah White is hoaxing with the source material;

Jarrah's main conclusion is that Apollo moon rocks samples contained H2O water in ppm which are comparative to terrestrial basalts from a Hawaiian volcano.


MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 2



edit on 9/22/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Yes. How about a compelling scientific need for the 5 counts of animal cruelty?


Do you eat meat?


What a STUPID response and just proves my point of this thread being a star feast for you and your mates..
Who'd star that ridiculous post???

I'm pretty damn sure the animal that provided my dinner tonight did NOT die from radiation poisoning or worse while up in space...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Nice try! Denied!


Your refusal to answer the question, your evasions, are proof of your hypocrisy. Do you care what happened to some animal? You banter the word "torture" around, yet you refuse to acknowledge your own guilt. Meat is murder:



You're little better than a war criminal, and don't even have the guts to be proud of your actions. At least Milan Slobodovic was able to boast a bit. Hypocrite.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Let's get back to business.


You're the one that brought up accusations of torture, dead-animal-breath. Why are you suddenly changing the topic? Is it morally wrong to kill an animal? Is it? Yes or no? Do you eat meat? Wear leather?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Let's get back to business.


You're the one that brought up accusations of torture, dead-animal-breath. Why are you suddenly changing the topic? Is it morally wrong to kill an animal? Is it? Yes or no? Do you eat meat? Wear leather?


DJ your going way off topic.
You are derailing the conversation and collecting stars for it.
Killing animals for sustenance is natural.
Prolonging their pain and suffering for experiments is not. Thats cruelty and torture.

What you should be addressing, in relation to circumstantial evidence that man did not land on the moon, is explain why NASA would launch monkeys into space, not however to the moon, to test for radiation, when they already sent two Apollo missions with people. And were set to land men on the moon in a months time. That flies against the face of logic. Its apparent that possibly there were two space missions occurring.
One which faked the moonlading,
The other top secret mission that was actually studying manned space flight (MOL) which was an extension of Gemini, that further transformed into the space shuttle:



Lawrence was a 31-year-old Air Force officer when he was selected in 1967 to join a small team of military officers training for a planned small space station. The Pentagon's "Manned Orbiting Laboratory," or MOL, was intended to explore the value of military space missions for astronauts. Two-man crews would be launched aboard advanced Gemini capsules and spend a month or more in orbit, practicing visual reconnaissance and communications intercepts and other national security tasks.

NASA astronauts had already made ten orbital flights aboard Gemini spacecraft, and had just begun the Apollo program and its race to the moon. But the 1960s space race wasn’t just about peaceful exploration, and both the Soviet Union and the United States were also developing manned space systems for military purposes.
Just two years later, however, the MOL project was canceled as its costs soared and as unmanned military satellites became more sophisticated. The astronaut team was disbanded, some returning to their parent services and the youngest ones transferring to NASA. Had Bob Lawrence lived, he likely would have been among the group sent to NASA, all of whom later flew in the space shuttle program.

Instead, Lawrence's death in a Dec. 8, 1967 jet crash made him the only member of the MOL team to lose his life in the line of duty on that program. The crash itself soon became entwined with garbled stories and widespread misunderstanding. Sometimes called a "training flight" or a "space shuttle landing test," the true nature of the flight -– and the enormity of the loss -– remained elusive for decades, and this contributed to Lawrence’s remaining the "unsung astronaut."

In 1971, Apollo 15 astronauts left a memorial plaque on the moon that named fourteen American and Russian names. Lawrence was not included. When, in the wake of the Challenger shuttle disaster in 1986, a private foundation built a memorial at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Lawrence’s name was again omitted.
If in the end the difficulties turned out to have been more connected with the color of his uniform -- Air Force blue -– than of his skin, the fact remains that Lawrence's legacy was allowed to go unheralded for decades.
Lawrence's MOL colleagues flew in the shuttle, walked in space, commanded Spacelab science missions, and later assumed high positions within the space program. They took command of NASA space centers, space industry divisions -- one even became NASA Administrator.



Although the program's aims are highly classified, it is publicly known that the MOL was to be a military space station that would fly 30-day missions. One of the reasons often cited publicly for the project's demise was the advent of unmanned spy satellites. Orbiting platforms filled with high-powered cameras and radars were improving so fast the Air Force decided there was no need to have men in space to tend to them, according to several public accounts.
NASA's Deke Slayton, head of the astronaut office and one of the original seven astronauts, agreed to take all the MOL astronauts who were 35 years old or younger.

That slate included Crippen and Truly. For Crippen, the move to NASA meant applying some of what he learned about living in space to the designs of the civilian Skylab space station.

It also gave the agency an infusion of new expertise.

"It produced some of us guys who went on to fly the shuttle and a lot of us MOL guys went on to do some of the design work on the shuttle."




www.nasa.gov...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
edit on 22-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

edit on 22-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

edit on 22-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Killing animals for sustenance is natural.
Prolonging their pain and suffering for experiments is not. Thats cruelty and torture.


Sacrificing a creature in order to learn things that may later protect and save human lives may be cold, but it is neither cruelty nor torture. Because the ultimate aim was to prevent human suffering, it was actually compassionate. I know compassion is a difficult concept for you, given your liberal use of LULZ when you think you have hurt someone. Sayanara has definitely touched a nerve with his sloppy, hypocritical attempt at propaganda. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone in the civilized world to be eating meat. Raising animals in cramped quarters, feeding them filth, including the remains of their fellow species (this cannibalism can lead to kuru, popularly known as "Mad Cow Disease), brutally slaughtering them, mangling them then wrapping the bloody remains in cellophane is unnatural and disgusting. If all the land that is now used for grazing or raising crops to serve as animal feed were used to produce vegetables, grain and soy, food prices would be much lower, hunger would be abolished and land and water resources would be more efficiently managed and sustainable.

In short, scientists experiment on animals in order to save human lives; Sayanara murders animals because it satisfies his unnatural hunger.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Killing animals for sustenance is natural.
Prolonging their pain and suffering for experiments is not. Thats cruelty and torture.


Sacrificing a creature in order to learn things that may later protect and save human lives may be cold, but it is neither cruelty nor torture.

*SNIP*


Wow, and I got my post deleted because I had a video of a high ranking officer stating that no man could fly past the VABs. But its fine for DJ to discuss the pros and cons of eating meat in a moon hoax thread.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Wow, and I got my post deleted because I had a video of a high ranking officer stating that no man could fly past the VABs. But its fine for DJ to discuss the pros and cons of eating meat in a moon hoax thread.


Sorry, but it seems to me that Sayanara Jupiter was the one that dragged cruelty to animals into this thread. He did so in an attempt to create the impression that NASA scientists were deliberately sadistic, using "torture" as an end in itself. He then made gratuitous references to the Viet Nam war and Richard Nixon. Oddly enough, Richard Nixon ended the war in Viet Nam. He also created the Environmental Protection Agency. He also opened diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, which eventually led to the economic reforms that allow the Chinese people to enjoy a level of affluence undreamt of thirty years ago. But Sayanara neglected all this. He went for the cheap shot, the highly emotive word "torture." His attempts at propaganda are so primitive and childish that the folks at Pravda would laugh at him. How ironic, by attempting to paint the space program as nothing more than propaganda, Sayanara keeps revealing how little he understands of propaganda.

I'm perfectly serious, though. Meat is murder. We need to evolve past that if civilization is to survive.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Irrelevant emotional manipulation. 'NASA is ebil because they torture monkeys!'

[...]
And it wasn't just one monkey or two monkey,

NASA tortured 5 monkeys for one mission.


[...]
You're not proving me wrong, you know.

Also, you didn't answer my post*, so let me restate; do you think the astronauts liars, or trustworthy?

'Liars', here, is defined as 'have lied or may have lied about the missions, at any point, ever', and 'trustworthy' is 'can be relied upon to tell the truth'.

*This is a common tactic of both FoosM and SJ; when faced with several posts they don't want to respond to, they quote-mine one response and answer that, while dismissing the rest.
edit on 2011/9/22 by 000063 because: +



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 574  575  576    578  579  580 >>

log in

join