Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

Yeah, it's not like being squeezed into a tin can and blasted into space where one false move can kill you in an instant isn't something that we all do every day.

It was not a long trip really

384,403 km.

Pretty far.

and I know plenty of jobs on earth that are more cramped and worse..

How many of them involve pooping in bags with lots and lots of explosives a few feet away?

Also, thousands would have gladly taken their place so I think your point is moot..

No it's not. Plenty of people want to become soldiers. That doesn't mean they wouldn't get PTSD.

I think your points are moot.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

This is one of those times when Never a Straight Answer applies...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
There is a way for the astros to get out of jail free and still look like the heroes.

They can disclose everything they saw and did up there....

I love how you can jump from 'can't trust NASA' to 'why aren't they telling us the truth?' in such a short period, and don't think it's a contradiction.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Since you admit that NASA wants to preserve the sites from damage by future missions, I will construe this as an admission that a) the sites exist and b) travel to the Moon is possible. Way to lose an argument. Sayonara, Sayonara.

Not really, to me its a red herring, or it shows that only a small department of NASA know the true facts of Apollo.

I find it odd that the concept of NASA being honest is not even considered by you.

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.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


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

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM

 

I'm sorry, I don't see how race is relevant. Unless, of course, you were trying some juvenile trick to paint me as a racist.

So what made the lady's age relevant?

Old people are more prone than the general population to going senile, Alzheimer's, and other mental problems. This is not some sort of slur; this is scientific fact. My sardonic point was that using one as support, via the bandwagon fallacy, lends you no credibility at all.

I note how you did not explain how race would be relevant.

Originally posted by backinblack
I don't seem to recall anyone showing 100% proof that they did land yet.

Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it isn't proof.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

The carrot idea was ww2 psy-ops,

want moar info!

Xub is wrong; it wasn't psy-ops. It was disinformation. The Brits were getting good at finding German planes due to having radar, so they said they had discovered eating carrots improved eyesight to throw the Jerrys off the trail. The myth persisted to this day, and the real facts are easily available.

www.snopes.com...

reply to post by FoosM

Well I guess you did, so please provide us links for those other conferences!

What a short memory you have. Here, let's call on our star witness to testify that the Apollo astronauts continue to hold press conferences, though, like the Beatles, they usually appear separately:



Also, since the astronauts made good will tours all over the planet, it seems to me that they must have given many, many press conferences in many, many languages. I would post some photos for you, but that function is down. Here, try this.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Well I guess you did, so please provide us links for those other conferences!

What a short memory you have. Here, let's call on our star witness to testify that the Apollo astronauts continue to hold press conferences, though, like the Beatles, they usually appear separately:

A DJ will spin.
You know what we meant by press conferences.
Where are the POST mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17?
Because we would like to compare it TO the infamous Apollo 11 POST mission press conference.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
I don't seem to recall anyone showing 100% proof that they did land yet.

Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it isn't proof.

Actually it doesn't make it proof either.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

The carrot idea was ww2 psy-ops,

want moar info!

Xub is wrong; it wasn't psy-ops. It was disinformation. The Brits were getting good at finding German planes due to having radar, so they said they had discovered eating carrots improved eyesight to throw the Jerrys off the trail. The myth persisted to this day, and the real facts are easily available.

www.snopes.com...

Well thanks anyway to both of you guys for setting the record straight.

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

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

You aren't posting any content other than one liners and flippant responses. Remember that Biosatellite III mission was launched less than 30 days prior of Apollo 11.

The last mission in the U.S. biosatellite program was Biosatellite III, launched on June 28, 1969.

And it wasn't just one monkey or two monkey,

NASA tortured 5 monkeys for one mission.

The "scientists" were funded directly by NASA, using Frankenstein techniques that harken back to the Dark Ages.... (33 sensors implanted in one animal)... These are highly educated men, right?

Despite the failure of the mission's scientific agenda, Biosatellite III was enormously influential in shaping the life sciences flight experiment program, pointing to the need for centralized management, more realistic goals, and substantial preflight experiment verification testing.

Life Sciences Research Objectives

The mission objective was to investigate the effect of space flight on brain states, behavioral performance, cardiovascular status, fluid and electrolyte balance, and metabolic state. Radiation studies were also conducted.

Life Sciences Payload

Organisms
A single 6 kg male pigtailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) named Bonnie served as the experimental subject on the mission (Fig. 4-13).

The animal was instrumented with sensors for 33 channels of physiological data. Implanted sensors included bipolar electroencephalographic electrodes, electrooculographic sensors, electromyographic leads, cardiovascular function and respiration sensors, and temperature sensors in the brain and peritoneal cavity. Catheters were chronically implanted in the saphenous vein and both femoral arteries to measure blood pressure, and in the bladder to collect urine. Four identically instrumented monkeys served as ground experiment controls. .

Hardware
Equipment used for the flight experiment included bipolar electroencephalograph electrodes, electromyogram electrodes, electrooculogram electrodes, heart function and respiration sensors, four intravascular catheters to measure blood pressure, temperature sensors for the brain and peritoneal cavity, a urinary catheter, and transducers.

A psychomotor test system was used to obtain data on in-flight performance of visuomotor and delayed matching tasks. The animal was held in a hammock-style restraint system with a feces collector and attachments for the urine catheter and cardiovascular pressure monitoring and perfusion systems. Casein-based diet pellets from an electrically powered dispenser were provided during the flight. Twenty pellets were offered gratis every day. Another 40 pellets could be obtained each day as rewards for successful task completion. A suction-activated drinking system provided water. A seven-channel analog tape recorder was used to collect data.

Results

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone. However, subsequent Soviet and U.S. flights of monkeys, lasting from 5 to 14 days, have cast serious doubts on such a hypothesis. It is likely that over-instrumentation and chronic restraint resulted in the animal's demise. This possibility is supported by the deaths, shortly after the termination of the flight phase of the mission, of two of the similarly-instrumented ground-based controls.

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?

reply to post by FoosM

Where are the POST mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17?
Because we would like to compare it TO the infamous Apollo 11 POST mission press conference.

Why are you asking me to do your research for you again? Why don't you just e-mail NASA and ask them to post the videos to YouTube? Better still, why don't you write NBC and ask them to post the segment from the Tonight Show (with Guest Host Joey Bishop, of course) where the Apollo 14 astronauts appeared. They don't look too zombie-like to me:

reply to post 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 question is why do you keep using the word "torture?" Ah yes, negative connotations. You are one obvious propagandist. Why were scientists sending (admittedly) over-instrumented creatures into space? Let's take a look at the mission specifications:

Biosatellite 3 - . Payload: Biosat 3. Mass: 695 kg (1,532 lb). Nation: USA. Agency: NASA Ames. Class: Biology. Type: Biology satellite. Spacecraft: Biosatellite. Decay Date: 1970-01-20 . USAF Sat Cat: 4000 . COSPAR: 1969-056A. Apogee: 374 km (232 mi). Perigee: 363 km (225 mi). Inclination: 33.5000 deg.

www.astronautix.com...

The satellite was to orbit at an altitude 370 km: the very heart of the inner radiation belt! Yes, NASA knew that humans could spend a short while in the radiation belt, but they needed to know what long term exposure would be like. The original plan was to keep the subject in orbit for a full month. Given that it was likely that the subject would not survive, which would you consider less cruel: sending an astronaut or a monkey?

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM

 

I'm sorry, I don't see how race is relevant. Unless, of course, you were trying some juvenile trick to paint me as a racist.

So what made the lady's age relevant?

Old people are more prone than the general population to going senile, Alzheimer's, and other mental problems. This is not some sort of slur; this is scientific fact. My sardonic point was that using one as support, via the bandwagon fallacy, lends you no credibility at all.

I note how you did not explain how race would be relevant.

edit on 2011/9/21 by 000063 because: +

Well its part of the early "tainting" of hoax believers isn't it?
A counter balance of thought.
Using agism, sexism, racism, nationalism, etc, as a negative association.
So the typical middle class anglo american in the 60's would not want to be associated with an 80 year old, a negro, a communist, redneck, or any group burdened by stereotypes, who disbelieve the claims that NASA landed men on the moon. A classic tactic used to disrupt people from asking questions.

Im surprised you fell for it. But why would I? We all fall for these kinds of tricks one way or another. So as you say, your first thought was not about a wise old woman who after living full life could see easier than young impressionable persons that her government was lying to her... life lessons learned and all that. No, you instead focused on:

Old people are more prone than the general population to going senile, Alzheimer's, and other mental problems. This is not some sort of slur; this is scientific fact.

So, you could have come up with some stereotype for black people as well, and claim it as fact... right? Maybe you might have said something like, "Well, lets be honest, blacks in 1960's America had less access to the same quality of education as whites. Therefore, they might not as a whole understand the scientific principles and proofs associated with the manned Moon landing" I mean, thats not racism, thats just stating fact, right?

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

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Where are the POST mission press conferences for Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17?
Because we would like to compare it TO the infamous Apollo 11 POST mission press conference.

Why are you asking me to do your research for you again? Why don't you just e-mail NASA and ask them to post the videos to YouTube? Better still, why don't you write NBC and ask them to post the segment from the Tonight Show (with Guest Host Joey Bishop, of course) where the Apollo 14 astronauts appeared. They don't look too zombie-like to me:

Why dont you retract your earlier statement if you cant back it up.
The Tonight Show is not the same as a NASA post flight press conference.
But I understand that you see it all as TV PROGRAMMING.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post 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 question is why do you keep using the word "torture?" Ah yes, negative connotations. You are one obvious propagandist. Why were scientists sending (admittedly) over-instrumented creatures into space? Let's take a look at the mission specifications:

So the monkeys volunteered?
For missions that served what purpose exactly?
I dont think the moon missions did much to advance the lives of monkeys.
Heck, they apparently are not that important for us humans either.
What a waste.

reply to post by FoosM

Why dont you retract your earlier statement if you cant back it up.
The Tonight Show is not the same as a NASA post flight press conference.
But I understand that you see it all as TV PROGRAMMING.

Very well, I'll e-mail NASA myself. Please don't project your inability to distinguish videos from reality on to me.