Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Tomblvd

Where do you get that?

I gave a link that showed they are tracking objects 20 INCHES in diameter in GSO.

The objects they can't track are extremely small.

Now if you want to show some proof that astronomers can't see a satellite in GSO, go for it

Tracking by Government and being seen by citizens with telescopes are two different things..
IF you assume apollo was a hoax, which is the point of this thread, then you would also assume they would not release that they had tracked the object..
That would be silly...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Where do you get that?

I gave a link that showed they are tracking objects 20 INCHES in diameter in GSO.

The objects they can't track are extremely small.

Now if you want to show some proof that astronomers can't see a satellite in GSO, go for it

Tracking by Government and being seen by citizens with telescopes are two different things..
IF you assume apollo was a hoax, which is the point of this thread, then you would also assume they would not release that they had tracked the object..
That would be silly...

I'm not talking about "Government", I'm talking about astronomers.

reply to post by Tomblvd


Thanks mate..I read through that link and it does state there are many LARGE items of debri still not tracked..
And that most are tracked by NORAD, not home telescopes..

I also remember hearing very recently that NASA actually lost that experimental craft for a while..
How does that happen??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Thanks mate..I read through that link and it does state there are many LARGE items of debri still not tracked..
And that most are tracked by NORAD, not home telescopes..

I also remember hearing very recently that NASA actually lost that experimental craft for a while..
How does that happen??

Can you be a little more specific? And maybe use some sources?

Cause I have no idea what you're talking about.

reply to post by Tomblvd

Ignoring tracking by Gov sites..
The whole point is that a craft orbiting that high will not neccessarily be seen..
That's all I'm pointing out..

Yes, someone may fluke seeing it but that's not 100% certain..
Do you agree?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Ignoring tracking by Gov sites..
The whole point is that a craft orbiting that high will not neccessarily be seen..
That's all I'm pointing out..

Yes, someone may fluke seeing it but that's not 100% certain..
Do you agree?

First of all you speak of "Government" tracking sites like they are all one. Well every government is different, and a site in the USSR is more than likely to mention an object in GSO, as are many other "Government" sites. So I have no idea what your hangup is about "Gov." sites.

Second, most of the people looking into space are astronomers, by a long shot. If there is an anomalous sighting at a point in space, the entire astronomical network would know about it very quickly. It would be impossible to hide a spacecraft in GSO.

Third, if you are planning a conspiracy that depends on hiding a spacecraft, you aren't going to try something that isn't "100% certain".

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand my post.
Notice how I too can avoid answering your questions.

I understood your post fine..
You just assumed all you quoted was from me when in fact I had quoted someone else..

Your crap about me being Foo though is hard to understand..

Well, good for you, you did understand it -- and then disregarded the questions. Thanks for confirming your obvious intentions. And the comparison with FoosM's tactics is quite fair. Just ask around.
You don't have to rate your level of intellectual involvement in this thread. Others will judge. But not answering questions posed to you will not earn you any respect or consideration.

Originally posted by Smack

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand my post.
Notice how I too can avoid answering your questions.

I understood your post fine..
You just assumed all you quoted was from me when in fact I had quoted someone else..

Your crap about me being Foo though is hard to understand..

Well, good for you, you did understand it -- and then disregarded the questions. Thanks for confirming your obvious intentions. And the comparison with FoosM's tactics is quite fair. Just ask around.
You don't have to rate your level of intellectual involvement in this thread. Others will judge. But not answering questions posed to you will not earn you any respect or consideration.

What, silly questions like these that you asked??

Essay Question: Name 3 of the most commonly used telescopes in that time frame (60-70), noting the pertinent specifications for each, and describing any significant optical (excluding electronic or motorized additions) differences from their counterparts today.

It would have been quite small at that altitude and not high in the sky

It would be quite small relative to what exactly? Explain. At what altitude (nautical miles) do you guess it should be? How did you arrive at that figure? Show your work.

Three lously telescopes you want to know about??
We know the altitude is around 22,000 miles...

Yes, I agree most things in orbit are seen, OVER TIME...!!!
In this case it would not have been up that long..

reply to post by backinblack


Could you do some research into something?

Take the history of the Apollo launch direction, and orbital insertion inclination. (See, that was not possible to fake....a lot of the media who followed the space program became somewhat "expert" on the technical aspects).

Once you have determined that inclination, then see IF your "mind experiment" of their "hiding" in a geosynchronous orbit is even possible. Think hard on the concept....and pay particular attention to the math and physics of orbital mechanics.

I'll see if I can find some references for you....I have one in mind, made by NASA back in the 60s, but have to find the right keywords......Maybe it's under "rocket science"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, that's not where it was....but, I found it anyway, one I was thinking of. ALSO, although it feels like one of those films you watched in grade school in the 1960s, in terms of its style...it is actually from 1994!!!



Stay with it....opens with the laws of planetary motion (since they orbit too) and applies to satellites in Earth orbit. By about 4:00 it's beginning to get informative, as it builds a solid basis of understanding first.

You will need that basic grasp, for what's to come.....you must have that understood, for when you get to 9:00, and the "six elements of an orbit", it gets complicated.....

The REALLY important part (inclination, as I already mentioned) begins at 16:00!!!!

Stay with it, try not to nod off....and pay attention to the discussion about a "thrust against the orbital plane" (sounds sexy, huh??). About 26:00 or so.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'd say the debate was based on whether an object in GSO would be visible if only there for a short time..
That's all I was discussing in relation to that issue..

reply to post by backinblack


reply to post by backinblack


Nonsense. You made a claim. I challenged you on it. You deflected and ran away.
You gainsay what Tom says, but bring no facts. You're merely contradicting every statement without proving anything. This is a cowardly tactic used by trolls and is so similar to the tactics used by the poster FoosM that I have to think this cannot be a coincidence.

What I am going to do now, is get the attention of an Admin and submit a complaint to get to the bottom of this.

Terms and conditions: www.abovetopsecret.com...
"16c.) Multiple Accounts: You will not create multiple user accounts and "talk to yourself."

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack

 

reply to post by backinblack

 

Nonsense. You made a claim. I challenged you on it. You deflected and ran away.
You gainsay what Tom says, but bring no facts. You're merely contradicting every statement without proving anything. This is a cowardly tactic used by trolls and is so similar to the tactics used by the poster FoosM that I have to think this cannot be a coincidence.

What I am going to do now, is get the attention of an Admin and submit a complaint to get to the bottom of this.

Terms and conditions: www.abovetopsecret.com...
"16c.) Multiple Accounts: You will not create multiple user accounts and "talk to yourself."

lol, terrific. fire away with the complaints..
BTW, what CLAIM did I make??
I don't recall making ANY claims..
I merely questioned claims others had made..

Originally posted by backinblack

lol, terrific. fire away with the complaints..
BTW, what CLAIM did I make??
I don't recall making ANY claims..
I merely questioned claims others had made..

Ah yes, the "I wuz just askin questions" claim.

You are making the claim that "an object in GSO would be visible if only there for a short time.."

And the answer is yes it would, given the trajectory and time frame of Apollo.

reply to post by Tomblvd

Ah yes, the "I wuz just askin questions" claim.

You are making the claim that "an object in GSO would be visible if only there for a short time.."

And the answer is yes it would, given the trajectory and time frame of Apollo.

Do you guys not understand english??

It was CLAIMED by others that an object WOULD be seen no matter where it was in orbit..

I questioned that...
That is NOT me making a claim and BTW, I still think you are wrong..
I'll do some research though...

reply to post by backinblack


This post here was made whilst I was off finding the video. So review your post, and then watch the video, then come back if you wish, and describe (using your new-found knowledge of orbital mechanics) how any of the Apollos could have launched from the Cape, entered the "parking orbit" we all know was the first step...and THEN (somehow) "fake" the LOI burn, and make it only appear (to all the "dolts and numb-skulls" watching...since, that would have HAD to be the case, right??) to be on a trajectory that took it away from the Earth, and on its journey to the Moon...but, "in fact", it just altered into this fanciful "geosynchronous" orbit instead, to "hide out" for a few days.....

I know it wasn't YOUR idea originally....it came from the (ahem) "fertile mind" ...I use the word 'mind' loosely....of "Jarrah White" (noise).

BTW....I may try to find the YouTube videos where the "White (noise)" nickname for "JW" came from...forget the UTube user, atm.....

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Ah yes, the "I wuz just askin questions" claim.

You are making the claim that "an object in GSO would be visible if only there for a short time.."

And the answer is yes it would, given the trajectory and time frame of Apollo.

Do you guys not understand english??

It was CLAIMED by others that an object WOULD be seen no matter where it was in orbit..

I questioned that...
That is NOT me making a claim and BTW, I still think you are wrong..
I'll do some research though...

They do this all the time.
Whenever a good point is made that they have a difficult time to explain away,
they bombard the thread with posts designed to distract poster and enlarge the thread
so that new readers will not get a chance to read the point that was made.

Their new tactic is to call anyone who disagrees with them me, FoosM.
Earlier I was accused of being JW.
LOL.

Back to your point.
If NASA indeed faked the missions, which I happen to believe they did, it wouldn't be unusual that they "planted" stories of "amateur" or "independent eyewitnesses" to lend believability to the hoax. But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo.

reply to post by FoosM


Oh....LOL!

Name ONE "good point" that perhaps YOU raised, that wasn't properly explained, in detail specific to it, with a full answer.

Whenever a good point is made that they have a difficult time to explain away,
they bombard the thread with posts designed to distract poster and enlarge the thread
so that new readers will not get a chance to read the point that was made.

Speaking of "distracting and enlarging" the thread.....do you have a mirror nearby? Take a good, long look.

Because, when YOU "raise a point", and it is properly explained, and fully answered as to why your claim, thought, assertion is incorrect....what happens next??

Oh yes...IGNORE the full answer that doesn't go your way, and come up with some other off-the-wall nonsensical claim, thought or assertion .....

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

ad infinitum.....the great thing about what I just wrote? The EVIDENCE is there for all to see, back on the last ~200 pages......



So, again.....you repeat the bold claim that you "think" Apollo was faked. Rather broad statement that, TO DATE, has not been backed in any way, by any of your efforts. In fact, with the amount of information presented in response, one would presume that most people would have a little bit, at least a drop or two, of that knowledge trickle into the brain, and maybe even educate the person...

....well, you would presume. Where's that Family Guy video of the donkey who won't listen...?

......I know it's around here somewhere.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


That post was a lot of off topic lines with little content WW..

I think that is what YOU are complaining about and yet YOU are a contributer..

Seems kinda hypocritical..
Or is the intent to make this thread so full of BS that no one cares anymore???

Originally posted by FoosM
But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo.

Assuming you're talking about the Apollo 8 reentry photo, please describe what exactly makes it "suspect."

reply to post by FoosM

But when you look into these "independent" sources their information ends up being suspect. Just like that photo.

Very well, look into these sources more closely and let us know what you find. Be specific, show your work .