Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

originally posted by MacTheKnife..

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

I have never seen anything but theories about why the SAA exists and why it's where it is..

Could you please link to a source that states differently ?

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
A simulation is faking. ... NASA DID fake countless hours of manned lunar missions and they are not shy about admitting it.

Faking (in this context) connotes a degree of deception. What was the inended deception in the simulations you've mentioned ? Kinda hard to deceive people when you're "not shy about admitting" it.

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
As for your assertion that the Apollo missions were about sending men to the moon, I have to say you're a bit of a pollyanna. The Apollo missions were ballistic missile tests. It's not a coincidence that the rockets used were identical to the first ICBM's. Since ICBM tests couldn't be hidden (for obvious reasons), the next best thing was to concoct a hoax to explain the battery of missile tests. It's also not a coincidence that the "warheads" they put on the tops of the rockets for the Apollo missions were virtually identical in size and weight to the nuclear warheads that now tip ICBM's.

What ICBM system resembles, in any way other than they are rockets, the Saturn V ?

Originally posted by backinblack

originally posted by MacTheKnife..

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

I have never seen anything but theories about why the SAA exists and why it's where it is..

Could you please link to a source that states differently ?

The wiki on it seems fairly good. Combine geomagnetic tilt plus offset plus a little non-uniformity in the Earth's magnetic field and you've got a SAA.

reply to post by MacTheKnife


Thanks Mac but Wiki is not really that good and the references for that page are not flash..

Yes, NASA is listed as a reference but that's only on the computer crash issues..

reply to post by StalkingGoogle

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to address your various "issues" at the moment. I will return at the next available opportunity to engage them. In the mean time, you might reflect upon the unavoidable conclusion that no member who as made their entrance boasting about their having been banned on other sites has ever managed to last for very long here...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by MacTheKnife

 

Thanks Mac but Wiki is not really that good and the references for that page are not flash..

Yes, NASA is listed as a reference but that's only on the computer crash issues..

Let me see if I can't dig up some more academically inclined material ... if I can get away from the "honeydo" cycle this weekend. But what, specifically, is your question ? The SAA is just a bump in the lower edge of the inner most VAB. The VAB comes close to the Earth in that part of the southern hemisphere due to the reasons I've mentioned. I think that part is pretty well established by general mapping of the VABs. What's "anomalous" is the weakness in the magnetic field that allows a little more of a "bump" to come even closer. The internal detailed workings of the dynamo(s) that create the Earth's magnetic field are not as well known. Is that your question ? Last general theory I can recall is that the inner Earth is not just 1 big dynamo but rather a collection of lesser ones that added up and (mostly) look like one big dynamo. But from time to time they come unsynched, for lack of a better term, and the overall magnetic field can collapse and reverse. Rocks have shown this reversal has happened many times in the past so the theory of multiple dynamos seems on solid footing. Given that, there are bound to be local variations across the Earth as each dynamo may be closer or further from the local surface than others. At least that's the general theory I've heard. Seems plausible to me.

Fair enough mac and perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by StalkingGoogle

 

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to address your various "issues" at the moment. I will return at the next available opportunity to engage them. In the mean time, you might reflect upon the unavoidable conclusion that no member who as made their entrance boasting about their having been banned on other sites has ever managed to last for very long here...

I'll opine he's counting on his salty nutsack to save him. Alas I doubt this will prove true. I can only hope he'll last long enough to tell us how a Minuteman is identical to a Saturn V. Or perhaps how we have Saturn V based ICBMs in hidden silos across the US. Or ??? Should prove [Spock_voice] fascinating. [/Spock_voice]

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by deathlord
how else would a man made object perfectly get placed and set up on the moon in the 1960's?

The smarter HB'ers will say it was done with an unmanned lander as the Russians did during the Apollo program. The stupider one's will go off on a tangent about how bouncing lasers of the Moon can be done w/o a retroreflector.

The Soviets did utilize many robotic probes, not just to land on the moon with instruments but also to return lunar regolith samples. Incidentally, virtually all of NASA's lunar regolith was stolen several years ago. The court-imposed price per gram combined with the total cost of the stolen material can be used to calculate that only a couple of kilograms of material exist, not the hundreds of kilograms claimed by the hoax believers.

Also, you can bounce lasers off the moon without a retroreflector. Here's a few things you might want to find out by doing a little research:

Of course you can bounce a laser off the Moon ... given enough power and collection time. That's not the point. Responding to whether the retroreflectors are on the Moon or not with that type of response shows the respondant is either ignorant or trying to avoid the question. Demonstrating that the retroreflectors are there is a simple matter of aiming the beam off the reflectors and comparing the signal returns to those obtained when aimed at the reflectors.

As to the rest of your questions let's just start with a simple info-graphic on the Apache Point project.
physics.ucsd.edu...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd2d2c5801da.gif[/atsimg]
... and take it from there.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So you admid that you have no sources? You're just making this stuff up as you go? Was nice talking to you.

To be fair, you could argue the points before pointing to a lack of source..

Not every opinion needs a source..

Well for one he didn't state an opinion. He stated it as a fact. Just like now I state it as a fact that I saw him kicking little kittens. It's a fact and you have only my word on it.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
A simulation is faking. ... NASA DID fake countless hours of manned lunar missions and they are not shy about admitting it.

Faking (in this context) connotes a degree of deception. What was the inended deception in the simulations you've mentioned ? Kinda hard to deceive people when you're "not shy about admitting" it.

Sorry, couldn't figure out how to get my reply, below, out of the quote box. Any friendly advice on how to do so in the future ... BANSHEE

Secrecy does not imply deception ( although something is always hidden ) and deception does not imply secrecy ( though here also something is always hidden ). My understanding is that the most widely espoused premise in this thread is that either we did have manned missions to the moon or that we could not go to the moon because radiation levels prohibited it. I contrast this to other possible scenarios that may be envisioned for why we did not go to the moon ( just testing ICBM's, aliens prohibited it, funding money into Black Ops, etc. ).

It makes sense under such a scenario to do research and to develop technology as far as possible, and in great detail, so that in the event a solution were found to the radiation hazards, that the mission could proceed. All of this work can proceed in the open, or at least be released at such time as it is no longer of concern for it to be outed ( in terms of other nations making use of the research or the like ). Whether one then actually goes to the moon or not all of this is available as evidence that one did, should one be inclined to make such a claim.

So you are right that fakery implies deception, and the need for the deception to cloak whatever is being kept secret ( hidden ). One can however deceive and still be up front about many details, and it is in fact of advantage to do so if those details draw attention away from whatever is hidden. A simulation is a "run-through" and is meant to emulate an actual event. Furthermore doing a run-through is a responsible act when lives are at risk. Doing simulations and telling people that you are doing the simulations is a wise move. Once the simulation record exists it can be put to many purposes, or the same techniques can be refined to produce a new record more suited to ones clandestine purposes. Or of course you can take what you learned, and if radiation shielding permits, use it to actually go to the moon.

Originally posted by bansheegirl

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by StalkingGoogle
A simulation is faking. ... NASA DID fake countless hours of manned lunar missions and they are not shy about admitting it.

Faking (in this context) connotes a degree of deception. What was the inended deception in the simulations you've mentioned ? Kinda hard to deceive people when you're "not shy about admitting" it.

[snip]
Doing simulations and telling people that you are doing the simulations is a wise move. Once the simulation record exists it can be put to many purposes, or the same techniques can be refined to produce a new record more suited to ones clandestine purposes. Or of course you can take what you learned, and if radiation shielding permits, use it to actually go to the moon.

While it's certainly crafty to hide in plain sight, the OP was trying to poison the well by declaring all the sims done in the open as "fakes". Then added in a poor junior high debating technique in repeatly crying "fake, fake, fake ..." hoping the repetition will somehow make his definition stick. Alas he didn't make any case that the mission data seen in mission control was simulated (that would be a fake!), but rather hoped the reader would buy that w/o question (since sims being done is known and not questioned and he's conflated the word "fake" with simulation). Given he believes the Apollo missions were actually ICBM tests, I'm left to surmise that (mission data was faked) was his point.

Not everything that can happen ... does. It's not enough to present something as being possible and then claim that it happened. And in this case I'm not at all convinced that faking it in this manner is possible. And it's obvious that some portions of the missions were not faked in such a manner.

WRG quotes : I'll use braces instead of brackets to show what happens to produce a quote box. When this is present ;

[quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[i]
blah blah blah [/quote]

You'll get a quote box. Type your response after the [/quote] tag, on the same line or the next. Multiple levels of embedded quotes happen with this ;

[quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by somedumbass[/i]
blah blah blah [/quote]
more and more blah blah blah [/quote]
Your response goes here.

To keep things tidy it's good to have the [quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[/i] on it's own line.

Now can someone tell me how (? if ?) to hotlink to offsite pictures and have them display in a post, instead of having to D/L them and then U/L them to storage here on ATS and then "embed" them.

Originally posted by backinblack
I have never seen anything but theories about why the SAA exists and why it's where it is..

It's really due to simple geometry.

Here's the Earth, with the geographic axis (the axis the Earth spins around) shown in green:



But the magnetic poles don't line up with the geographic poles. Using the 2004 numbers here, we find the north magnetic pole was located at 82.3°N,113.4°W while the south magnetic pole was located at 63.5°S, 138.0°E. Notice how the north magnetic pole is farther north from the equator than the south magnetic pole is south from the equator? When we draw the magnetic axis connecting these two points we get this, shown in red:



Notice that the magnetic axis doesn't pass through the geographic center of the Earth (where the green geographic axis and the equator intersect)?

If the radiation belts were centered around the geographic axis of the Earth, the inner belt would look something like this:



But the radiation belts are, in fact, centered around the magnetic axis of the Earth. So instead they look something like this:



Because the magnetic axis of the Earth does not pass through the center of the Earth, and the magnetic axis is tilted with respect to the geographic axis, it causes the inner belt to come much closer to the surface of the Earth, over the South Atlantic. This is what causes the South Atlantic Anomaly.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

While it's certainly crafty to hide in plain sight, the OP was trying to poison the well by declaring all the sims done in the open as "fakes". Then added in a poor junior high debating technique in repeatly crying "fake, fake, fake ..." hoping the repetition will somehow make his definition stick. Alas he didn't make any case that the mission data seen in mission control was simulated (that would be a fake!), but rather hoped the reader would buy that w/o question (since sims being done is known and not questioned and he's conflated the word "fake" with simulation). Given he believes the Apollo missions were actually ICBM tests, I'm left to surmise that (mission data was faked) was his point.

Not everything that can happen ... does. It's not enough to present something as being possible and then claim that it happened. And in this case I'm not at all convinced that faking it in this manner is possible. And it's obvious that some portions of the missions were not faked in such a manner.

Huh??

The simulations were fakes?
I think he meant that the missions were fakes, and they used the simulations to fool people.

I had posted evidence that NASA even had simulations for the simulations.

And posted earlier were videos where one mission control technician said that they probably wouldn't know the difference from the real thing.

Its not for the people to prove that NASA did not land men on the moon, its up to NASA to prove that they did. Those who dont believe it, have provided ample evidence on how it could have been faked. Simulations was one possible way to fool the workers at NASA and the public. They had dual purpose.

The Goddard Simulation Teams played a vital role in helping the tracking stations to prepare for missions. Specially equipped Super Constellations carried equipment and radio transmitters and transponders to simulate an Apollo spacecraft for the tracking station. See Preparing for Apollo for some of the background.

The next day, Wednesday 21 June 1967 George Harris and the Goddard Simulation team arrived in the Super Constellation NASA 421 to check our mission procedures out. In the USB area we had Rod Fischer as observer, helped by Jerry Brennan. First of all we did a Phase 1 Site Readiness Test (SRT) which we were to become very familiar with, as we had to perform one before every manned flight pass. There were lots of conferences and discussions between the hierarchy but we troops had little idea of what was really going on, except to know we were not doing very well. This was made very clear to us by George Harris addressing us in the crew room when he bluntly said, “You guys are just a bunch of sh*t.”

As a result of our poor performance in these simulations we suffered a major staffing shake up, beginning with a new Station Director. Tom Reid was transferred from Orroral Valley to replace Bryan Lowe and Deputy Director Bert Forsythe was replaced by Michael Dinn from Tidbinbilla.

On Monday 7 August 1967 Tom Reid arrived, just as the new road was opened, and we prepared for a second session with George Harris.

On Monday 18 September 1967 George Harris and the Simulation Team arrived from Carnarvon and on Thursday we had an H-140 count, interfacing with the Wing at Tidbinbilla for the first time. After our previous efforts we all had a better idea of what was required but Reid very cunningly requested George Harris to be M&O (Ops 1), assisted by Ken Lee as AM&O (Ops 2). This time we followed the procedures a lot better than before. These simulations were so intense that Eric Stallard in Telemetry was asleep in bed at home and during the dead of night startled his wife by suddenly sitting up and calling out “Decoms in Lock!”

John Saxon remembers, “Later when we got better we used to involve the outside world and places such as Sydney video. We actually managed to tie up most of the communications around the east coast of Australia – often Channel 7 didn’t get their news at the right time because we had all the television feeds tied up.”

After many practice runs NASA 421 and the Sim Team left on Friday 29 September and left us to lick our wounds. The staff shake out continued with the contractor’s Chief Engineer Wes Moon was replaced by Bill Kempees from Orroral Valley, the company manager John Matthews replaced by Tony Cobden, the USB Engineer Roy Benson by Gordon Carlisle, and Telemetry Engineer Geoff Seymour was brought in from Woomera.

So this brings up a few things.
For one, was it that difficult to track Apollo?
This would call in question those amateur saying they got signals, etc.

And also the military-like or thuggish attitude NASA presented towards the workers to instill fear. Fear to question what they were doing, or authority.

I mean, I thought this was supposed to be a pleasant partnership with other countries. LOL.

Yeah, I know, others would say it was necessary because lives were at stake.

We tracked all three of these missions [Apollos 4, 5 & 6], which gave us SOME experience working with the MSFN network and Houston, and SOME practice acquiring and tracking spacecraft in Earth orbit. With all the simulations and real spacecraft tracks we felt we knew our equipment pretty well and had developed into a confident team. However, we still felt we were junior members of the MSFN, not having UHF comms, not having been part of Gemini, and not having tracked many earth orbit activities.

Apollo 7 was our first real opportunity to perform consistently in earth orbit tracking. And this went very well – no signs of the early problems.

But finally with Apollo 8 we came into our own, and this upstart MSFN station called Honeysuckle, near somewhere called Canberra, came to centre stage and performed magnificently, along with all other parts of this incredible mission.

When did they practice for missions outside of the LEO?








www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Originally posted by backinblack

originally posted by MacTheKnife..

They are. The donut (or bagel) of the VABs circle around the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's spin axis. That's why there's a SAA.

I have never seen anything but theories about why the SAA exists and why it's where it is..

Could you please link to a source that states differently ?

The thing I dont quite get about the SAA is, if its always at the same location, does that mean the VABs rotate with the Earth? Or is it more like a broken window which allows the outside to come in?

Originally posted by FoosM
The thing I dont quite get about the SAA is, if its always at the same location, does that mean the VABs rotate with the Earth? Or is it more like a broken window which allows the outside to come in?

Yes, the VABs rotate with the Earth. It's the Earth's magnetic field that creates the VABs. The Earth's magnetic field rotates with the Earth.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
[
WRG quotes : I'll use braces instead of brackets to show what happens to produce a quote box. When this is present ;

[quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[i]
blah blah blah [/quote]

You'll get a quote box. Type your response after the [/quote] tag, on the same line or the next. Multiple levels of embedded quotes happen with this ;

[quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by somedumbass[/i]
blah blah blah [/quote]
more and more blah blah blah [/quote]
Your response goes here.

To keep things tidy it's good to have the [quote][i]Originally posted by MacTheKnife[/i] on it's own line.

Thanks, Mac. I much appreciate the mini-tutorial. This makes the presentation much tidier.

What are your thoughts on why the space agenda is leap-frogging the moon on the way to Mars and the asteroids. It seems to me that a forward base would be of inestimable value in such endeavour. I'm also aware that many things factor into such a decision ... just have no idea what the thinking might be in this case.

Originally posted by bansheegirl
What are your thoughts on why the space agenda is leap-frogging the moon on the way to Mars and the asteroids. It seems to me that a forward base would be of inestimable value in such endeavour. I'm also aware that many things factor into such a decision ... just have no idea what the thinking might be in this case.

Well that's a bit OT for this thread but my answer as to *why* is pretty simple ... political expediency. No US administration has really been a proponent of manned space flight. Grand speeches and long term promises are the rule. The Moon is old hat and something new is needed to stir the public to vote (for me!) whatever is proposed.

Now it's a whole 'nuther question as to whether "we" should be concentrating on the Moon or Mars or some NEO (for more than political purposes). Before the pinheads that bought Space.com borked the forums there, you'd have found a very smart debate on this topic by much more informed people than I. For all the pluses and minuses of each option, I'd opine that the Moon would be where I'd spend my $$s to promote the longer term goals. The reasons why are, again, OT for this thread ... and perhaps for this site. PM me if you want to know where (some) the SdC refugees went.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack
I have never seen anything but theories about why the SAA exists and why it's where it is..

It's really due to simple geometry.

Here's the Earth, with the geographic axis (the axis the Earth spins around) shown in green:
[big huge snip-a-roo]

Nice ! You've also managed to show the old adage about a pic being worth a 1000 words is very conservative. I'd estimate your pics above are worth at least 4793 of my words.