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: 611
377
<< 608  609  610    612  613  614 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What is NASA's motive for treating Al Worden this way over a few postal covers? Please explain that in your own terms.




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Dunno - I was 13 at the time & not paying any attention to US stuff.

The reports say that it wasn't actually a problem until Congress got involved, and started asking questions about unauthorised use of the mission - from that it looks to me like whoever was questioned by Congress got pissed at being questioned by Congress & took it out on whoever was closest.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Hmmm....well, thanks for destroying your own convoluted Apollo "conspiracy" theories, with this latest tirade about Al Worden:


What is NASA's motive for treating Al Worden this way over a few postal covers?


All of these pages of chest-thumping about how Apollo was "faked, faked, faked" and now, you yourself point out what you consider an indignity perpetuated upon an Astronaut. An actual Astronaut who actually flew the Apollo 15 mission.

Who, if (as you infer) was so poorly treated by NASA, that he would have no reason not to "spill the beans" on this so-called "conspiracy"....even more, he'd be happy to! As pay-back, for being treated so unfairly. Just think of the incredible wealth he could have earned, with such a blockbuster of a "story"!!

This is your own over-wrought and twisted form of "logic", and you have been ensnared in the machinations of your own creation, and our extremely biased imaginative ability to "connect-the-dots" in completely illogical directions.


Jarrah White seems to suffer from similar confirmation bias problems, and a mild form of paranoid delusion to boot.

Aye, 'tis.....



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Unexplainable questions:

1. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back? A 747 airliner doesn't even have a fraction of the fuel that would be required, and the LEM is barely the size of two standard cars! WTF? NASA has never explained that. All it said was "The LEM had enough fuel" and the sheep take it as gospel truth and fact. So dumb. It's like NASA's words create fact and reality and authority=truth. Big major fallacy.

2. The moon has about 1/5 the gravity of the Earth. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and jump higher as well?

3. NASA cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.

4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was traveling at about 25,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical.

5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.

Of course NASA has its copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc. But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



Unexplainable questions:

1. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back? A 747 airliner doesn't even have a fraction of the fuel that would be required, and the LEM is barely the size of two standard cars! WTF? NASA has never explained that. All it said was "The LEM had enough fuel" and the sheep take it as gospel truth and fact. So dumb. It's like NASA's words create fact and reality and authority=truth. Big major fallacy.





2. The moon has about 1/5 the gravity of the Earth. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and jump higher as well?


They actually move at the same speed as they do on Earth. They simply fall more slowly because of the reduced gravity. As for jumping:




3. NASA cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.


Where did you get the impression that NASA can't put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from Earth's surface?


4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was traveling at about 25,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical.


Just because you cannot see the exhaust does not mean it's not there. Hypergolic propellant burns pretty clean, and there was no moist atmosphere to form a condensation trail. As for the rest of your puzzlement, this might help:

history.nasa.gov...


5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.


Why are Moon bases a logical necessity? Frontiers are developed based on their economic utility. Going to the Moon is simply not cost effective... yet.


Of course NASA has its copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc. But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.


Correct, words are cheap. It is very easy to say "they didn't have enough fuel" or "how could they rendezvous in lunar orbit" or "they can't send a man above 1000 miles safely" or "if we really went we would have moon bases by now." Very cheap, especially if you make no attempt to support your assertions. Sorry to hear about your problems with women. Moon Hoax believers badly WANT the Moon landings to be fake, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


You're joking, right??

I mean, you started this thread, with your misplaced *love* of Jarrah White.

Why not try reading it, instead of posing those "questions"? Questions that by the way are easily answered by most schoolchildren, or merely with some proper research on your own.


4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust)...


>sigh<
Apollo 17's lift-off had the best video, timed with some difficulty because of the lag due to the speed of light, from Earth to Moon.

As soon as the engine ignites, you see the effects of the thrust upon the loose materials.
Time reference 0:09 to 0:12

As the LM ascent module gains altitude, they perform the pitch-over maneuver, and that points the engine nozzle at the camera, and you can then see the heat from the hypergolic reaction producing the thrust.
Time reference 0:20 to 0:24





edit on Wed 19 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



Why not try reading it, instead of posing those "questions"? Questions that by the way are easily answered by most schoolchildren, or merely with some proper research on your own.


He clearly hasn't been reading his own thread. He only posts here when the thread falls off the "Recent Posts" page. He is bumping, not contributing. Let's see if he even responds to the last two posts.
edit on 19-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
1. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back?


It didn't. The S-IVB stage of the Saturn V sent them on a trans Lunar injection. The CSM was used for getting into and out of Lunar orbit and for any mid-course corrections. The LM never touched a drop of its propellant until it began its decent to the Lunar surface.

I don't really care if you believe if the landings are fake or not, but you could at the very least try to learn the basics of how the Apollo missions worked before you go off claiming it's fake. Judging from your list of questions (especially your first one), you really need to back and read more about the Apollo missions.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Unexplainable questions:


No - just unexplainable stupidity.


1. How could that little LEM possibly have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and all the way back?


It didn't - it sat atop a freaking great rocket that was almost nothing BUT fuel in order for it to get there.


Big major fallacy.


Big mistkae you starting with such a stupid question


2. The moon has about 1/5 the gravity of the Earth. So how come the astronauts in the Apollo footage were moving so slowly and couldn't jump very high? Shouldn't they be moving faster than if they were on Earth and jump higher as well?


they did jump higher, and they didn't move much faster because a given force can only accelerate you so much - the effects of air resistance at low speed are negligible. Basic laws of motion.


3. NASA cannot put a man safely in space above 1000 miles from the Earth's surface. So how could it have sent men 240,000 miles to the moon six times with no casualties? It doesn't make sense.


Who says they "cannot" put someone 1000 mile above the earth?

Will not spend the money to do so perhaps - but that is not the same as CANNOT.


4. When the top half of the lunar module blasted off from the moon's surface (with no exhaust), how did it re-dock with the command module orbiting the moon, which was traveling at about 25,000 mph? NASA has never really explained that. The chances of docking with it were astronomical.



Just as well it was out in space where things ARE astronomical then!!


It wasn't CHANCE dummy - it was engineering!


5. If we had gone to the moon, there would be flights there everyday now, and moon bases as well. That's how history goes. It's simple logic. So the fact that we haven't gone in 40 years is very suspicious indeed, to any rational thinker with common sense, not the sheep who consider themselves rational but take on faith anything they are told by official sources.


things often get abandoned because they are just too freakin' expensive or not worth the effort. Where are the nuclear aircraft? Cargo submarines? Nuclear cargo ships? Large cargo airships? Hover cars?


Of course NASA has its copout explanations for not returning to the moon - too expensive, not necessary, no motivation, etc.


And are those reasons true or not?


But the problem is that the pro-Apollo believers harbor the logical fallacy that whatever NASA says MUST be the truth. This is the "authority = truth fallacy". The problem with this is that words are easy and cheap. Anyone can give any convenient excuse for anything. For example, a woman can refuse sex with her husband with the excuse that she has a headache, but that doesn't mean that it's the real reason. Likewise, a woman can turn down a date by saying that she is "busy" or "needs time to herself" as a polite excuse to mask the real reason - that she is not attracted to him. Anyone can make excuses, but that doesn't mean that the excuse is the full truth and that nothing is hidden. Those who commit this fallacy are biased. They badly WANT the moon landing to be real, so they will only see what they want to see, and be unable to examine the evidence objectively without bias.


so the moon landings are fake because some women fake headaches to avoid sex?

Sure anyone can make excuses - and anyone can also check to see whether they ar real or not.

does NASA have abudget to go to the moon?? NO

Does hte US congress look like it is going to vote such a budget to NASA any tiem soon?? NO - despite people trying to get it to happen.

How much do you think it cost to run the Apollo programme?? here's the costs involved

Here's NASA's budget figures from 1958-2010 - go on......tell us where the money is??

This should be good for a laugh....except of course I don't expect this idiot to be back unless he has to bump his thread as has been noted already.....
edit on 19-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Dunno - I was 13 at the time & not paying any attention to US stuff.

The reports say that it wasn't actually a problem until Congress got involved, and started asking questions about unauthorised use of the mission - from that it looks to me like whoever was questioned by Congress got pissed at being questioned by Congress & took it out on whoever was closest.


Oh? What kind of questions were Congress asking? And who was doing the asking? Please be specific. Show the chain of events and name the players.

So far the players are Al Worden, Chris Kraft, an unnamed Congressman, Dave Scott and Jim Irwin (fellow Apollo 15's) and Deke Slayton...

From Dave Scott's wikipedia page:


According to his autobiography (Deke! [ISBN 978-0-312-85918-3]), Deke Slayton, Chief of the Astronaut Corps, felt Scott, Worden and Irwin had embarrassed NASA and the Apollo program by trying to profit in such way from the hard work that had gone into the Apollo 15 mission, not to mention it went completely against NASA rules. He confronted them and they told him what they'd done and why, and it was then that Slayton took them off the back-up crew of Apollo 17 and effectively ended their careers as astronauts. Worden went on to work at Ames Research Center and Scott was placed in the Manned Spacecraft Center. Irwin left NASA to become a full-time preacher.


See? All the people are named except the Congressman. Please support your argument by naming names.
edit on 10/19/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: color tags



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Here you go - my source- I have little or no info othe than this, and make no particular claim as to its accuracy -


....the discovery of the Sieger covers' sale caused Congress to take notice and led to NASA taking disciplinary action against several Apollo astronauts, including Apollo 15 commander David Scott, who admitted to carrying the stamps, and Jack Swigert, who was not involved in the incident directly but was less than forthcoming when asked to provide information to investigators about the practice of carrying souvenirs aboard spacecraft.


Here's another account-


But the stamps were considered “unauthorized” and proven an embarrassment when Congress got involved during a period of budget cutting that resulted in the loss of three planned Apollo missions. When NASA learned of the unauthorized stamps, they confiscated the 298 kept by the crewmen. Political pressures led NASA management to “make an example”, which resulted in their removal as backup for Apollo 17, and none of the Apollo 15 crew flew in space again.


If you are somehow trying to embarras me for something you imagine please rest assured you won't - I have no great beef with this as accurate or otherwise at all - as I said it is what I imagine happened and I do not present it as a proven fact.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
If you are somehow trying to embarras me for something you imagine please rest assured you won't - I have no great beef with this as accurate or otherwise at all - as I said it is what I imagine happened and I do not present it as a proven fact.



Up above you said

Aloysius the Gaul:

The reports say that it wasn't actually a problem until Congress got involved, and started asking questions about unauthorised use of the mission - from that it looks to me like whoever was questioned by Congress got pissed at being questioned by Congress & took it out on whoever was closest.


I don't care about winning karma, stars or embarassing you. I was hoping that you had some real reports with names. You only provided one wikipedia entry and an anonymous post on FREEREPUBLIC.com (an American, right-wing conservative website) freerepublic.com...

It just means we have to keep digging. Maybe Chris Kraft or Deke Slayton mentioned the un-named congressman in a book or interview? It seems like they are both the "political" players for NASA at this time. Slayton and Kraft would be the most likely people to know who it was.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Fair enough - I hope you find something interesting.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




According to his autobiography (Deke! [ISBN 978-0-312-85918-3]), Deke Slayton, Chief of the Astronaut Corps, felt Scott, Worden and Irwin had embarrassed NASA and the Apollo program by trying to profit in such way from the hard work that had gone into the Apollo 15 mission, not to mention it went completely against NASA rules.


See anything here about "shooting his mouth off about the landings being 'faked?'" You keep reading more into the incident than is justified. If you have evidence that Worden was "fired" because he was going to expose NASA deception, please present it.

The opprobrium towards NASA over the "postage stamp affair" came from the entire Congress, so it's pretty hard to name names. If you wish to do a bit of legitimate research, you might start by putting the phrase "William Proxmire" into a search engine.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The opprobrium towards NASA over the "postage stamp affair" came from the entire Congress, so it's pretty hard to name names. If you wish to do a bit of legitimate research, you might start by putting the phrase "William Proxmire" into a search engine.


Ok. Here is your legitimate research.

Moon Rocks Lost, NASA Audit Says
The Pittsburgh Press - Oct 4, 1979






posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Now, we're really making progress:


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Moon Rocks Lost...



How excellent is this? Even more confirmation and admission that Apollo brought back Lunar samples.

A fact not really in doubt, not for the majority of educated people on this planet (and perhaps, many other planets as well....who knows?).

Nice job


The use of the [ 'BB code' ] was a stroke of....well, it was certainly something....too!!



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Ok. Here is your legitimate research.


According to the figures in the article, over one tenth of one percent of the lunar material has gone missing!

During the Apollo Program and beyond, William Proxmire dogged NASA every step of the way. If there had been "shenanigans," he would have exposed them. People who lived through the era are aware of this. The next generation needs to learn of it from people who know how to do legitimate research.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Ok. More legitimate research. Explain 24.6 percent of moon rocks given to researches were lost by 1979. NASA refused to allow any auditing of the moon rocks. According to this article 843 pounds of rocks were brought back and 24.87 pounds were "unaccounted for or missing." in 1979.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


There are 2 parts to eth explaination:

1/ someone went to the moon and bought back some rocks.

2/ Clearly research institutions are careless and should not be entrusted with such rare ressources.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Anyone want to bet on whether or not the OP is the Aussie "genius" lol

Can't believe this thread ever went this far.




top topics



 
377
<< 608  609  610    612  613  614 >>

log in

join