What is with the trust of NASA?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Again we are talking about the trust of NASA and the first link you send me...GUESS WHO! Yeah dude this argument is going nowhere with you...

It's up to you to prove the link is wrong. Yes, you've established by the title of your thread that you have a bias against NASA's space science, but it's up to you to prove that there's valid evidence to support that bias. You've said that NASA "absolutely faked" their Apollo program, but again, where is the evidence? As far as I can tell you still refuse to accept that there was nothing wrong with the fiducials in the Apollo photography; you'll cite conspiracy theorists who use a low quality NASA scan of a photo which blows out part of a fiducial by clipping the high end of the histogram, but you blatantly ignore higher quality scans that show there was never anything wrong. It's up you to prove that the higher quality scan is not to be trusted, or that the link given to you about NASA's astrobiology is not to be believed.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter
I can't prove it their is evidence for and against my claim...As for the assertion that my views are biased is incorrect...I have looked at both sides as many people do not...The moon landing is at the bottom of the dirt.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I can't prove it their is evidence for and against my claim...As for the assertion that my views are biased is incorrect...I have looked at both sides as many people do not

You clearly have not, you take the photo you like because you think it proves your claim and ignore the other that debunks your claim. There is nothing wrong with the fiducials.

...The moon landing is at the bottom of the dirt.

You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence proving that to be the case. The moon landing was real, Apollo really took place as described and documented. You can even use the recordings from Apollo to time the feedback and measure the distance between the earth and the moon to such accuracy that the eccentricity of the moon's orbit becomes measurable.
arxiv.org...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter
Radiation and the way it would have worked out for that "craft" is my biggest issue...No sir you are wrong and I'm pretty sure both of us won't agree, to say I didn't listen to both sides is childish since you don't know me.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Radiation and the way it would have worked out for that "craft" is my biggest issue...

Have you ever bothered to quantify how much radiation would be received by an aluminum spacecraft passing through the van allen belt (nevermind the q-felt fibrous insulation, also an excellent shield against particle radiation)?
www.spacetethers.com...
The command module had 2.5cms of aluminum shielding. Based on that part of the shielding alone, please explain to me how 10 rads is lethal. Bear in mind, that since this was a LEO-GEO-LEO measurement, the passage through the belt was much slower than for a LEO-Moon-LEO trip, so this is a very generous estimate.

No sir you are wrong

No, I'm not. Apollo 12 could not have happened without a human on board to fix the problems created by a lightning strike which scambled the spacecraft's link to ground controllers. Amateurs on the ground saw it going to the moon after TLI, therefore it was real. Sure enough, close examination of every claim you make reveals it to be false.

to say I didn't listen to both sides is childish since you don't know me.

Did you know that high resolution, high fidelity scans of Apollo images show the fiducials are just fine before I said anything? Honestly, did you?

reply to post by ngchunter
Ahhhhhhhh is that weedwacker or WMD staring you hahaha
Anyways that radiation argument, umm no.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Ahhhhhhhh is that weedwacker or WMD staring you hahaha
Anyways that radiation argument, umm no.

I'll take that as an admission you'd never bothered to quantify how much radiation would have actually been received by the astronauts. I'm rather disappointed that that's all you have to say to everything I just said. It's pretty obvious that you're not interested in what both sides have to say.

reply to post by ngchunter
"It's pretty obvious that you're not interested in what both sides have to say."


Not anymore because I've had many years to think about it and go through evidence...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


Oh...Jeez.

Open minded, aren't we?

Read through this forum discussion:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com...

Really, with your head so deep in the sand, it's no wonder you aren't learning anything:

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas.

In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

www.crystalinks.com...

No, it's much easier to hold on to an idea...rather than have the courage to study the REAL science, and investigate and learn.....

AND to add:

The standard for a lethal dose is designated LD 50/30, defined as the short-term exposure (i.e. over a period of a few hours or less) which would kill 50% of the humans exposed within 30 days. It’s around 350-400 rems (3.5-4.0 Sv). (Radiation Safety Office. Radiation Safety Handbook. Columbia University, s.d.)

As shown above the legal limit is 700 times less than a harmful dose. The reason for this strictness is that there is no such thing as ’safe’ radiation, it’s just the body heals the DNA damage etc… more efficiently if less damage is sustained.

By looking at other sources and the official NASA info, the amount of radiation that the astronauts were subjected to, was 2 rems, for each time the astronaut went into space. See The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and radiation and the van allen belts for two of many sources I used.

www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com...

The 'radiation' argument has long ago been killed and buried.



[edit on 27 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker
The same can be said...
The same can definitely be said...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

The same can be said...
The same can definitely be said...

No, the same can't be said.

The others on this thread have done their due diligence in investigating the hoax claims in an attempt to discover whether those claims hold up under logical and scientific scrutiny. It appears you have not. All you have done is stated Moon hoax claims without providing any additional insight into those claims.

The others on this thread have shown they can open their minds to the possibilities of these pieces of hoax evidence. They open their minds during the process of trying to logically or scientifically verify or discredit the evidence. You have not -- or if you have, you have not bothered telling us about your investigation into trying to verify these claims.

Others have been open minded enough to actually do some investigation showing that the radiation exposure could be minimized. You have displayed no such initiative into actually investigating or reasearching the evidence. You offer no substantive rebuttal showing that the evidence from the other posters is false. I assume if you can't show that the radiation exposure could NOT have possibly been minimized, then radiation exposure is not an issue.

You also haven't given a counter-argument to the explanations for the "shadows and hills" claims by hoax advocates that you mentioned several posts back. I have shown that I actually thought through these hoax claims and shown through logic and everyday observation that these claims are false. If you have nothing to counter with, then I will assume that the alleged problems with the shadows and distant hills do NOT constitute evidence of a hoax.


You say "The same could definitely be said"...
that would be nice rhetoric if it was actually meaningful. However, as it stands so far on this thread, we are the only ones who have actually opened our minds while yours remains stubbornly shut. Do you have any substantive evidence to add, or are you going to just going to engage in trite and meaningless rhetoric?

I'm not asking you to automatically believe what we are saying simply because we are saying it -- You believing me just because I tell you something would be wrong. I don't believe everything I read or hear; I usually feel the need to confirm it (either though research or real-world observation). HOWEVER, unless you actually use the brain that you have to actually be part of the investigation into verifying these claims, or by rebutting our counter-claims, then your closed mind is useless in this conversation.

Having said that...So, what else do you have in the way of evidence? (and please -- please provide some back-up information as to why this evidence is so damning.)...
Or, going back the the specific topic of this thread, could you please provide REAL evidence (again, with back-up) that NASA has lied so much in the past that they should no longer be trusted.


[edit on 5/28/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 5/28/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


Here's another good read, for you. More history regarding Apollo.

The book "Angle Of Attack", written by Mike Gray...it chronicles a lot of the North American Aviation company's involvement in building some of the Apollo components, under the direction of Harrison "Stormy" Storms.

(NAA was the contractor who was awarded the Saturn V second stage contract --- 'S-2' --- and they also built the Apollo Command Module).

~400,000 people were involved in all the various aspects of the entire space program, in the 1960s to early 1970s, that included Apollo.

It is incredibly complex, and the generations today who fall for this "moon haox" BS apparently don't have the mental capacity to take it all in, and comprehend just how things worked, especially back in the pre-silicon chip days of slide rules, drafting tables and blueprints.

I jotted down just a few notes (because I am always learnig something new, and find that makes life more interesting).

JUST for the CSM project (and not counting ALL of the other incredible things that went on with the S-2), here is a run-down of just a FEW of the sub-contractors NAA employed in order to fulfill their contract with NASA:

Collins: Radios and communications
Garrett: Environmental controls
Honeywell: Stabilization and spacecraft attitude controls
Northrop: Recovery Parachutes
Lockheed: Launch Escape Tower (for the CM)
Marquadt: The RCS (Reaction control system) thrusters
Aerojet General: The Main Engine (on the SM)
Pratt & Whitney: Fuel cells

I never know, before, that General Motors (GM), Allison Division built the fuel tanks for the S-2.

NAA was the general contractor for the parts mentioned (Boeing, Douglas, Grumman etc built other sections)...and overall, over 50% of the entire spacecraft was sub-contracted, to literally hundreds of separate vendors.

You "hoax" believers simply have no comprehension...the people who worked on this project were dedicated....most worked for months, years, seven days a week, NO vacations. Lots of divorces, stress, heart attacks, list goes on and on....

going back to my above rant that was in rebuttal to the notion that Moon-landing believers are close-minded...

...I remember years ago when the moon-hoax theories first started coming out. While I did believe we went to the moon, and while those hoax claims did not automatically sway that belief, I did find some of their evidence "intriguing" -- at least intriguing enough to take a closer look at.

For example, the non-parallel shadows argument and the "same mountain/different foreground" arguments did make me originally say "hmmm -- what's up with THAT?". HOWEVER, once I looked into it and thought about it, that particular Moon hoax "evidence" was seen by me not to be evidence at all. The shadows and distant mountains made sense once I investigated them, and those NASA photos seemed perfectly legitimate in that respect.

While I did not necessarily believe the moon hoax evidence, I also wanted to UNDERSTAND that evidence. I can't deny something that I don't understand -- and neither can you.

It seems that many hoax believers are reading these hoax claims and taking them at face-value without doing any investigation on their own. It seems that the difference between many of the hoax believers and me is that they are taking the word of these hoax-promoting websites at face-value without bothering to do any confirmation of the information contained therein.

For example, as I said, I was once intrigued by the non-parallel shadows and different foregrounds, but I took the time to discover why the photographs look that way. I can't believe that anyone who questions these photos had done even that basic investigation. Rather, it seems they believe what they read on those alternative websites just because those websites already agree with their pre-conceived notions about the Moon landings -- so to me those people seem like the close-minded ones.



[edit on 5/28/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...I remember years ago when the moon-hoax theories first started coming out. While I did believe we went to the moon, and while those hoax claims did not automatically sway that belief, I did find some of their evidence "intriguing" -- at least intriguing enough to take a closer look at.

Same here. I remember feeling a little excited when I first saw some of the claims and wanted to dig into them. One that grabbed my attention was a cleverly done edit of flag video that showed the flag waving and a voiceover asking why is the flag waving if there's no air on the moon. So some of us were intrigued by these hoax claims, and weren't as closed-minded to them as the OP would like to suggest.

Of course when I dug into it and watched the unedited version of that video, it immediately became apparent what was causing the flag to wave, and it obviously wasn't air.

Regarding a lot of these claims you can prove the truth to yourself, especially the photographic claims, because it's possible to take pictures yourself of shadows on uneven surfaces for example to see they aren't parallel when you do it either.

But perhaps the hardest claim to get over for some people is the radiation claim, I hear that a lot. And yes they really did pass through a radiation field, that's a fact. And unlike the photography claims, it's a lot harder to conduct any experiments yourself to demonstrate the truth about radiation.

You really have to be determined to find the truth about that one. Radiation isn't always lethal. I've had a few chest X-rays and they probably weren't good for me just like the astronauts passing through the Van Allen belt probably wasn't good for them either. But in both cases the radiation exposure was nowhere lethal. I agree though that the astronauts did get zapped a little though and probably do have a slightly higher chance of getting some type of cancer as a result. But any claim the astronauts would have died from that radiation just doesn't hold up to research and scrutiny.

I will say this, however. I think radiation will be a major concern for any manned mission to Mars. Why? Because they will be exposed to radiation for more than just a few days. Passing the Van Allen belt won't be any worse but radiation exposure doesn't stop after that, and the longer they are in space the greater the chances of getting exposed to a solar flare or CME which could potentially be lethal if they don't have adequate shielding.
======
Reading this thread reminded me of Carl Sagan's book: "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark"

Sagan's limo driver wanted to ask him about science, but the questions he asked were more like the ones some people brought up in this thread, like ETs, 9/11 and other theories. Sagan said this about his limo driver:

He had a natural appetite for the natural wonders of the universe. He wanted to know about science, it's just that all the science had gotten filtered out before it reached him. Our cultural motifs, our educational system, our communications media had failed this man. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretense and confusion. It never taught him how to distinguish science from the cheap imitation.

I think that really hit the nail on the head in describing the two different viewpoints, real science and cheap imitation.

Thanks to all those who patiently contributed to this thread to help explain the difference! And best of luck to those of you still trying to tell which is which, there's some good advice in this thread.

Hey i agree with NWO will fail, sorry but i just dont see why so many are so supportive of NASA.


Oh as for those recent moon images, didn't NASA first images of the so called lander showed it as a nothing more then a moon rock.


and look you got stars for being attention seekers and NASA trust fans


Slowly ATS is been over run by forum members from The Skeptics Society Forum

since most of the opinion writing done here reminds me so much that of that forum.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

I'm not sure where you got the idea that ATS should be your playground.

The Motto: "Deny Ignorance"

More than a slogan and deeper than a mission statement, our members have embraced the motto of "Deny Ignorance" as our reson detre, demanding everyone who posts to aspire to a higher standard of participation. These simple two words have galvanized a broad membership base that spans the spectrum from highly speculative conspiracy writers to staunch skeptics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
and look you got stars for being attention seekers and NASA trust fans

Who said I'm a NASA trust fan? I have evidence that NASA posted a faked, photoshopped image on their website, and I can prove it. And despite the claim that NASA used film so the images can't be photoshopped, there it was, a photoshopped image from film. Actually they scanned the film image and that's what they photoshopped. The original film isn't photoshopped I'm sure and when someone pointed out the photoshopped image to NASA, they replaced it with one that wasn't photoshopped.

The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between having good scientific evidence a claim is true, and believing what someone else told you with very poor science or a misunderstanding of science to back it up.

So you see you can't believe people that say everything from NASA is true any more than you can believe people that say everything NASA says is a lie. You have to investigate the evidence on both sides of every claim to make a conclusion, unlike some people in this thread that could only point to a website done by someone else as their evidence and couldn't defend how they had looked at both sides of the story. It's the people that HAVE looked at both sides of the story who are most likely to arrive at the truth.

Trusting NASA is like Trusting the government (which is) and trusting them like them cleaning up the oil spill, you cant trust any government agency's for in which.

They always lies, i don't why this site is so much into bed loving with NASA.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Trusting NASA is like Trusting the government (which is) and trusting them like them cleaning up the oil spill, you cant trust any government agency's for in which.

They always lies, i don't why this site is so much into bed loving with NASA.

You are using the exact same circular logic that NWOWILLFALL is. You think NASA lies because they are untrustworthy. You think NASA is untrustworthy because they lie. Yet you cannot cite a single example, only your circular logic.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex
Circular argument eh? Yeah the same person who knows the actions of william cooper is tellin me this? Like I said, the evidence is there, DEBUNK IT.