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: 608
377
<< 605  606  607    609  610  611 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Just wait until the Japanese, Chinese, Indians get their machines on the moon. Then there will be a proper scientific investigation of the moon. NASA's fake moon rocks will no longer hold scientific or monetary value.


You sound pretty sure of that. What will you say when they confirm the authenticity of the Apollo and former Soviet Union samples?


Let me say that the story of Apollo intrigues me and I look forward to the new data that will be provided by foreign countries and commercial expeditions!

NASA's Keepout Zones , well , NASA left that material on the moon, abandoned it, so NASA doesn't have any authority over it. I am keeping a "wait and see" attitude




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001

In other words, faced with a pressing need for materiel, someone at Goddard did what quartermasters have been doing since the time of the Roman Legions: misappropriate government property to satisfy the immediate need of his unit. The tapes are no doubt in storage somewhere, but they've been written over with Landsat telemetry.


So somebody decided that Landsat tapes were more important than Apollo tapes and who could that be?
Richard Nafzger, Michael Collins or Noel W. Hinners?


They built archives for the Apollo missions and we are to believe the couldn't store these tapes.
We are also to believe that NASA became so broke they had to recycle the tapes.
We are also to believe that the data on these tapes was not considered important for scientists to study?
Its quite frankly a bunch of bologna.




It's true. They did build an archive. John Sarkissian at Parkes, who led the primary investigation says that ALL the Apollo telemetry tapes were sent to Accession #69A4099.

Accession #69A4099 is the complete telemetry archives for ALL Apollo missions. DJW001 claims that these tapes were recycled for Landsat. DJW001 denies the truth.
edit on 10/12/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: deny IGNORANCE



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



It's true. They did build an archive. John Sarkissian at Parkes, who led the primary investigation says that ALL the Apollo telemetry tapes were sent to Accession #69A4099.


Saying something is true does not make it true. This is what the documentation says:


The engineers boxed the one-inch telemetry tapes wound onto 14-inch canister reels-which served no other purpose than to provide backup if the live relay failed-and shipped them to the Goddard Space Flight Center. From there, the tapes were sent to the Washington National Records Center (WRNC) in Suitland, Md.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

They did not "build an archive," they sent the tapes to the WRNC:

www.archives.gov...

The tapes were stashed in cardboard boxes and put into storage without adequate documentation. If you read the report, you would know that they didn't even bother to write "Apollo 9" on the box. One accession number, thousands of tapes. Now, assuming you had the one inch tape reader to actually read the tapes, what would you expect the data to look like? How would it affect your beliefs, one way or the other? Would you look at the fuel pressure data closely, trying to see if there was something wrong with it? Or would you simply shrug and proclaim it all a "fake." Admit it, you love the "missing tapes" because you can claim that it's an attempt at a cover-up, even though all the information is available elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There is only one way to solve the problem of space radiation and that's to have a probe launched from earth with a dozen radiation instruments on it, and to have that probe simulate the exact trajectories of Apollo 11-17. And then we can all peer review that radiation data.


Are you saying that no-one has collected any radiation data? Seriously?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Are you saying that no-one has collected any radiation data? Seriously?


Have they followed the same flight paths as the Apollo missions ??



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Have they followed the same flight paths as the Apollo missions ??


Can you step in the same river twice?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Have they followed the same flight paths as the Apollo missions ??


Can you step in the same river twice?


So your answer is a "NO"...

I've wondered how they "supposedly" made up those charts that show the radiation in the belts etc..
You know, the ones you and others used to show Apollo had very little exposure..

Now you are saying those charts are mere guess work??
Are they a "real" representation or not ??



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Now you are saying those charts are mere guess work??
Are they a "real" representation or not ??


The radiation environment in space varies continually; in fact it is called "space weather." The maps of the Van Allen belts that get dragged out here every 100 pages or so show a schematized version of what the ERB's look like "on average." Even if you launched a probe to the Moon along an identical trajectory, there is no guarantee that the space weather will be the same. It wouldn't make any difference, because people can always say that it's faked.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So to sum up, the charts used in this thread were baloney.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



So to sum up, the charts used in this thread were baloney.


So, is this chart baloney?



www.windows2universe.org...



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think we get to measure currents a lot more often than radiation outside earths orbit...

We also don't make a chart that shows Apollo "JUST" skirting the edges of dangerous currents..

The radiation chart was crap and you know it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I think we get to measure currents a lot more often than radiation outside earths orbit...


At one point humanity had no idea that the oceans currents exist. Today, we monitor them constantly at many different depths. The situation was similar with respect to the space radiation environment. Today it is monitored continuously.

www.spaceweather.com...


We also don't make a chart that shows Apollo "JUST" skirting the edges of dangerous currents..


I'm not quite sure what you mean.


The radiation chart was crap and you know it.


I know exactly the opposite. You simply refuse to accept what you cannot understand. By the way, why aren't you critiquing Sayanara for his content-less posts?
edit on 12-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



What?? This deja vu is exceedingly tiresome...... :shk:



Until then, Apollo is a hoax from Low Earth Orbit.



This thread has addressed that nonsense on more than one occasion (have lost count how many times). Clinging to it is a sign of absence of any facts on a person's side, and is apparent that one is losing the *argument*.

There really is no *argument* in actuality. Because, on one hand we have a few dozen people who try to squawk "Apollo was faked!", and then they attempt to support that claim by exhibiting flawed, sometimes even intentionally misleading "information", cherry-picking from the historical records, rather than understanding the full scope (it is a complicated endeavor, this *rocket science*....and many who bleat on about the so-called *hoax* often do so because they simply lack the intellectual prowess to comprehend all its complexities and specifics).

On the other hand...we have the rest of Humanity who are able to understand the reality.

This entire "hoax" idea was promoted by merely one ignorant fool (Bill Kaysing), and like many charlatans of his nature, he used just enough pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo so as to fool those few individuals who lack the sophistication to understand.....


....and, this brings us back 'round to Jarrah White. Who as a young boy once dreamt of being the first man on Mars. He was heavily into the Space Program, a big fan. However, he discovered Bill Kaysing's ridiculous *theories* (via Kaysing's self-published "book") and claims, and followed on to read the insane ramblings that spewed from Ralph Rene's fevered delusions and (unlike the rest of us who also have a great interest in space, and have followed the science and technological issues for years), poor Jarrah White arrogantly thought that he was such a *genius* that he would know better than hundreds of thousands (tens of millions, by now throughout history) actual scientists and specialists around the planet.

Indeed, like Alice in the fairy tale, poor Jarrah White has fallen down a rabbit hole....except unlike Alice.... it is HE who is mad, has lost his mind, instead of the characters he encounters on his adventure.......

edit on Wed 12 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I think if the vacuum chamber and vacuum glove were compromised then the lunar samples were probably contaminated. Good Job NASA... went all the way to the moon to bring back potentially lethal untested moon rocks that could have wiped out the human race...


Ok, I got it, up to 20 people were exposed to lunar dust,
but conversely those events meant that they had an excuse to claim the lunar dust/samples were contaminated by our environment.
Yet the 'contaminated' moon rocks were still verified by dozens of countries including the USSR. Odd.

I like you you and your partner in slime apparently think that a lifeless rockball without water would somehow a)have life on it, and b)said life would necessarily be inimical to humanity after billions of years of evolutionary divergence.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I never posted on this thread because I do think that 'the kid' is woefully subjective in parts, (the use of a vomit comet for instance) while other 'no moon landings' ideas have the Apollo 11 in near earth orbit, so makes no sense. Now we have not so subtle Frankie goes to hollywood references from someone I thought might have a better standard. This place is a den, and a thread with 600 pages has now found the lowest common denominator.

So making a pop-culture joke by way of (valid) comparison is the lowest standard, while HBs repeatedly sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'la-la' while spamming the threat with pics, videos, and copy-pasted text they don't understand is just fine?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You know that 16-mm DAC that Edgar Mitchell brought back from the moon??
You know that 16-mm DAC that was supposed to be destroyed in the LM after the mission was complete?

NASA want's that camera so bad they are going to jury trial. Could this camera hold secrets?
Or it could be a piece of government property and a valuable part of history that Mitchell may have taken home without authorization.

Why have you never even acknowledged that possibility?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by ProudBird
It requires a full set of life experience to properly comprehend the full reality of the space program, and Apollo in particular.



The reality of the Apollo program is that it was full of spooks (CIA).
Unsupported assertion.

The rest of your post is so much of your nonsense and attempts to shoot the messenger that I can't even respond to all of it because it hits the character limit. If you are hoping to tire you opposition into silence, that's an excellent tactic to choose. Most glaringly, none of it addresses the factual evidence of the landings. All you can do is say people associated with it may or may not have been dishonest.


Originally posted by FoosM
They built archives for the Apollo missions and we are to believe the couldn't store these tapes.
We are also to believe that NASA became so broke they had to recycle the tapes.
We are also to believe that the data on these tapes was not considered important for scientists to study?
Its quite frankly a bunch of bologna.
Who is asking you to believe all of those, exactly?

And why would 'the tapes' be the only evidence from the reams therof with damning information? They've been good enough to fool almost everyone, including the USSR, with everything else for forty years, but 'the tapes' were the one thing they couldn't fake?

Boogity-boogity!


Originally posted by FoosM
THREE HORSES
ew4e9475a7.jpg
[stuff]
Very interesting indeed.
Could one postulate that the Apollo 11 crew, in silent protest, kept their names off due to the fact they knew it was fake? And that the Apollo 13 crew, who actually knew in their storyline that they were not going to officially land, kept their names off in protest?

genedorr.com...

1. What, no evidence of the Freemasons?
2. If they were all so filled with conviction as to leave their names off the patch in protest, then why haven't eny of them blown the whistle in 40 years?

They're either committed to the fraud, or not, FoosM. You can't have both.


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Just wait until the Japanese, Chinese, Indians get their machines on the moon.
They have, and confirmed NASA's results.


Researches have been looking at the same fake moon rocks for 40 years now.
If they don't have the real ones to compare to, how does anyone know it's fake?

Your quote nor the article says anything about the moon rocks.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You know that 16-mm DAC that Edgar Mitchell brought back from the moon??
You know that 16-mm DAC that was supposed to be destroyed in the LM after the mission was complete?

NASA want's that camera so bad they are going to jury trial. Could this camera hold secrets?


No.

NASA got their panties in a twist because Ed Mitchell dared to attempt to make some profit off of an historic relic that by all rights belongs to him!



Who cares if he kept one of NASA's cameras as a souvenir. He deserved it, and most of us would have done the same thing.

Evidently NASA cares. The space agency discovered that the British auction house Bonhams planned to sell the camera at an upcoming Space History Sale. According to Reuters, the item was labeled "Movie Camera from the Lunar Surface" and billed as one of two cameras from the lunar trip. The lot description also identified the camera as the property of pilot Edgar Mitchell and sported a pre-sale estimate of $60,000 to $80,000.


www.tomsguide.com...


An obsolete camera, without any film (although if still in working oder, would be cool to play with....though, it is too valuable to risk damaging). Hardly a keeper of "secrets"!

This is a weak attempt, in this thread, to make something out of nothing (again).


Here, the Apollo 14 camera equipment flown


Apollo 14 carried a number of cameras for collecting data and recording various aspects of the mission. Two 70-millimeter still cameras with multiple lenses, one 16-millimeter camera with four lenses, and the Lunar Topographic camera were carried on the command module. The landing module carried two 70-millimeter cameras with 60-millimeter lenses, two 16-millimeter cameras (one with a 10-millimeter lens and one with a 5-millimeter lens), and the 35-millimeter lunar surface close-up stereoscopic camera.


And,

16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC). Apollo 14 carried [color=gold]three Maurer Data Acquisition Cameras (DAC), [color=gold]one in the CM and two in the LM.


So, in addition to the one DAC that Ed Mitchell kept for himself, as a souvenir, the CM (Command Module) carried one back too, as pre-planned. Similar to other Apollo flights.

Really, what on Earth (or Moon) could be so *secret* about a movie camera?? A movie camera that is fully explained many places online, and in historical records.......

Oh, and SJ? You now acknowledge, via this feeble attempt to sow doubt, that indeed Ed Mitchell went to and landed on the Moon, and brought back a camera used during that Moon landing!!

Good job! We're making progress......



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
None of that matters DJ. If Kovalev got his data from Monte Carlo simulations, then, in theory, he hasn't measured anything at all.
Dismissing the question without answering, I note. The question isn't about what he measured, but about two contradictory claims.


There is only one way to solve the problem of space radiation and that's to have a probe launched from earth with a dozen radiation instruments on it, and to have that probe simulate the exact trajectories of Apollo 11-17. And then we can all peer review that radiation data.

Until then, Apollo is a hoax from Low Earth Orbit.
SJ, given your behavior here, you couldn't peer review the results. You couldn't peer-review a ham sandwich. NASA's results have been picked over and reviewed for literally decades, but apparently that's not enough for you. What's to stop you from claiming the results are faked, like you claim every single piece of evidence from every single Apollo mission was?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38
 



This is really silly, you know how they did it.


I thought they did it by building the sets on an angle.


Wires, sets on angle, spotlights, dummies, slow motion, scotch tape, models, transparencies, airbrushing, superimposing, you name it, they did it all.
"Magic" is not an acceptable answer.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 605  606  607    609  610  611 >>

log in

join