Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But you call the man a liar, and I asked what he lied about.
You haven't shown him to be any more of a liar than the average person.
Now if you said that he didn't back up some of his claims with witnesses and experts, I would agree with you.
But you had to go and call the man a LIAR. Thats a strong accusation to use willy nilly.
I hate that sort of crap.

And yet you accuse NASA of lying in every post. You accuse the astronauts of lying. You accuse the Russians of lying. You accuse JAXA of lying. I guess you consider lying to be normal

Now consider this: Kaysing admits that he worked for Raytheon! Raytheon has been accused of war crimes! Kaysing confessed to working with war criminals.

Well if I dont believe NASA landed men on the moon with Apollo what else can I call them?


And anyone who worked under Werner von Braun and his ilk were working with war criminals.
Whats your point? You are no closer to proving NASA landed men on the moon back in '69.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Others on this thread have not only accused NASA and the Apollo astronauts of lying they have accused NASA of murder. Calling Kaysing a liar is unacceptable to you Foosm, but accusations of murder don't seem to bother you?

They willingly and knowingly put men inside a death trap that is tantamount to murder.

reply to post by FoosM

Whats your point? You are no closer to proving NASA landed men on the moon back in '69.

And you have failed to prove that the "Father of the Moon Hoax" was not a liar. Don't you recognize the tactics I have been using on the last two pages? I have been pointing to "discrepancies" in Kaysings claims, calling his credibility into doubt and associating him with criminal behavior. (Oh yeah, I forgot to mention his substance abuse problems. ) Did these tactics prove my point? Do you think that your using them will ever prove yours?

reply to post by FoosM

They willingly and knowingly put men inside a death trap that is tantamount to murder.

Perfect example of your foolish tactics.

"Kaysing joined the Navy in 1940 as a midshipman and eventually was sent to officers' training school which led to his attending University of Southern California.[1] In 1949 he received his Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Redlands. He later worked for a time as a furniture maker, before working at Rocketdyne (a division of North American Aviation and later of Rockwell International), (1956–1963), where Saturn V rocket engines were built. Kaysing was the company's head of technical publications but was not trained as an engineer or scientist.

According to Kaysing he worked at Rocketdyne starting on February 13, 1956 as senior technical writer, then on September 24, 1956 as a service analyst, September 15, 1958 he worked as a service engineer, following on October 10, 1962 as a publications analyst, and on May 31, 1963 he resigned for personal reasons."

en.wikipedia.org...


Kaysing has zero creditability.

Phil

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What was Nixon doing? Does anybody know?

Kicking back watching movies of the Gulf of Tonkin incident! (BTW, the article does not mention that the astronauts were present at the VIP dinner.)

I stand corrected.

But I'm left wondering if Nixon hadn't had a germ would the NASA people have allowed him have dinner with the astros anyway?

The article indicates that "Nixon was to have dined with the astronauts on the eve of their departure from earth."

This means that Nixon had firm plans to be at Kennedy Space Center on the evening of what was July 15th.
When the President travels there are always huge preperations being made.

The article continues "But he (Nixon) cancelled this plan when NASA doctors expressed concern that [the astronauts] might catch a germ from the President."

So according to this article from the Toledo Blade July 19, 1969 there was a planned VIP dinner with Nixon at KSC on July 15th.

I will reiterate to be sure that I am clear. When the President travels there are always big preperations made. And from this miniscule snippet of newspaper reportage we should expect to find other evidence of this travel plan.

What do the Sacred Apollo Scriptures have to say about Nixon's planned VIP dinner with the astros at KSC on the evening of July 15th?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What do the Sacred Apollo Scriptures have to say about Nixon's planned VIP dinner with the astros at KSC on the evening of July 15th?

I have no idea. All I know is that "teleconferencing" is nothing new.

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

why dont you explain how these new photos are conclusive evidence.
Are these photos beyond the technology of fakery?

Of course they are not beyond 'fakery'. Why is your default position that they must be fake?

The photos are just a new piece of evidence, nothing more or less. However a lot of you have been clamouring for higher resolution LRO images. You got them, and re now ignoring them. So why were higher resolution images asked for in the first place if you would simply ignore them?

Hence my question, what would actually impress you? What would you consider to be evidence that would actually have you question your belief that the moon landings were fake? I still dont think you will answer the question, because you have no interest in learning anything new. You just want to justify your belief.

I believe he once said "footage without anomalies". Note how that is not affirmative evidence, E.G.: "Footage that looks like X." Given that an anomaly is either a)something incongruous, or b)something one doesn't understand in context, and most HBs mysteriously refuse to put things in context...

reply to post by FoosM


Everyone, FoosM's quote-mining again. I really should start keeping a monthly count.

reply to post by FoosM


I have absolutely no objection to HBs using an 81-year old woman's opinion to support their position.

None at all.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM

 

thats not an answer, its a link to someone elses work. And you didnt answer why your default position is that the pictures are fake.

So i'll try again:

Why is your default position that the higher-res images are fake?

Because I dont believe USA landed men on the moon during the Apollo program.
I dont understand how you dont get that.

That's called Circular Logic. "The photos must be fake because they never landed on the moon, so they can't be evidence of a moon landing because they're faked."

You believe in the photos because you believe they landed men on the moon.

No, Z believes the landings are real because of all the evidence supporting the claim that the landings were real. Eyewitness testimony of the launches. A mission broadcasted to literally, millions of people, and watched by millions more since. A mountain of documentation, and media, much of which NASA allows pretty much everyone to look at for free. The moon rocks, which were literally given away to over a hundred countries and scientific institutions. Und so weiter. Yet the hypothetical conspiracy remains undiscovered. Either the landings are real, or NASA is so justifiably confident in their faked evidence they should've fooled the HBs too.

Yet, you yourself cant say that the photos are not fake-able.

Argument from ignorance. Either prove the photos are faked, or accept them as evidence.

They offer nothing new to the older photos or film footage from Apollo.

You wanted high-res pics, dincha? There they are. Get crackin'.

Originally posted by FoosM

You are being disingenuous DJ.

You hypocrite.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Conclusive proof for me would be a multi-year, multi-rover project that visits upon all the Apollo artifacts, including Soviet landers, rovers and crash sites. If NASA can do 2 rovers on Mars for 6 or 7 years then the proof of concept is there for a lunar rover project with say, 4 little robots.

But we know how much NASA (& the DoD probably) likes to crash stuff on the moon... I'm looking at you GRAIL :LOL:

So, probably hundreds of billions of dollars to find evidence you could just handwave away as fake from the Agency you already think is lying.

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Conclusive proof for me would be a multi-year, multi-rover project that visits upon all the Apollo artifacts, including Soviet landers, rovers and crash sites. If NASA can do 2 rovers on Mars for 6 or 7 years then the proof of concept is there for a lunar rover project with say, 4 little robots.

But we know how much NASA (& the DoD probably) likes to crash stuff on the moon... I'm looking at you GRAIL :LOL:

So, probably hundreds of billions of dollars to find evidence you could just handwave away as fake from the Agency you already think is lying.

That makes no sense.

No, "hundreds of billions of dollars" would be enough to purchase 2 or more ISS. I'm talking about proven technologies that are only a few years old.

The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million.[2] Since the rovers have continued to function beyond their initial 90 sol primary mission, they have each received five mission extensions. The fifth mission extension was granted in October 2007, and runs to the end of 2009.[2][3] The total cost of the first four mission extensions was $104 million, and the fifth mission extension is expected to cost at least $20 million.

What I'm saying is you get at least 4 rovers to the Moon for the same price as 2 rovers to Mars. Just ballparking the figure...... but you were swinging and missing and entering NASA cost-overrun territory.

Do you know what Nixon was doing on the night of July 16th after Apollo 11 went into outer space?

From 8pm until after midnight he was partying down with his fellow Republicans at a so called
"DINNER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIA TION
THE WHITE HOUSE W ednesday, July 16, 1969"

The President:
At 8:05 p. m. you and the First Lady will be escorted from the Family Quarters of the Residence, down the elevator, and along the Grand Hall to the door of the Blue Room. You will pause while you and Mrs. Nixon are announced and then will enter the Blue Room to mix informally with your guests who will number 29 (list attached). Mixed drinks will have been served to your guests and the Marine Band will provide music from the Grand Hall.
The dress is black tie with long dresses for the ladies.
You and Mrs. Nixon will lead your guests into the State Dining Room for dinner at about 8:20p. m. The Air Force Strolling String s will provide music during dinner.
As the dinner draws to a close, it is suggested that you make brief informal remarks which will be recorded by the White House Communica­ tions ,Agency for inclusion in your Presidential Archives.
NOTE: No remarks have been prepared. There will be no press coverage.
After d'inner, coffee, liquers, and cigars will be served in the Red Room for you and the men. Mrs. Nixon will take the ladies upstairs to the Yellow Oval Room for coffee and liqueurs and will show them the second floor of the Residence.
After about .an hour and at a signal from you to a social aide, the ladies will be escorted downstairs to rejoin you and the men in the parlor.
\Yhen you and Mrs. Nixon have said goodnight to your guests, you will be escorted upstairs to the Family QUarters.

Does the description of Nixon's July 16 1969 shindig strike you as strikingly similar to certain scenes portrayed in his last movie - Stanley Kubrik's Eyes Wide Shut?

FoosM, you seem to be the best able to know this question. Does JW have any videos that you know of which have commentary related to Stanley Kubrik or Jay Weidner? I was just wondering if JW had explored those areas of Apollo lore.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

All of Shakespeare's original manuscripts were eventually used to wrap buns or start fires. What's your point?

Did you say Shakespeare? I've got a Shakespear for you DJ. You will # your pants. My apologies to your dry cleaners. Nixon's Presidential Diary from July 17th 1969:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b79d1e58e36.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM

 

I have absolutely no objection to HBs using an 81-year old woman's opinion to support their position.

None at all.

Of course you wouldn't.
And what about black people?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

All of Shakespeare's original manuscripts were eventually used to wrap buns or start fires. What's your point?

Did you say Shakespeare? I've got a Shakespear for you DJ. You will # your pants. My apologies to your dry cleaners. Nixon's Presidential Diary from July 17th 1969:

By the way SJ, to get the entire image in the post height and width should be no bigger than 500 pixels

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Does the description of Nixon's July 16 1969 shindig strike you as strikingly similar to certain scenes portrayed in his last movie - Stanley Kubrik's Eyes Wide Shut?

FoosM, you seem to be the best able to know this question. Does JW have any videos that you know of which have commentary related to Stanley Kubrik or Jay Weidner? I was just wondering if JW had explored those areas of Apollo lore.

Interesting stuff... would E.W.S. also have references to Apollo ?

To answer your question, no, JW does not deal with Kubrick or Weidner's theories.
He may have looked into it, but it doesn't come out on his videos.
And I can understand why.
He probably has learned that whenever he speculates, it provides fuel for attack.
Kind of like 9/11 crowd not wanting to incorporate the "no planes" theory.

So my impression is that JW has focused himself on throwing doubt to every piece of evidence that NASA uses to claim they landed on the moon (rocks, signals, retroreflectors, etc). And then he goes and supports why the trip was impossible in the first place: Radiation.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

What I'm saying is you get at least 4 rovers to the Moon for the same price as 2 rovers to Mars. Just ballparking the figure...... but you were swinging and missing and entering NASA cost-overrun territory.

edit on 9/10/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

The only problem with Rovers is that many also believe the Mars rovers are fake.
Because, no matter what, the information is coming from one source.

They could work in conjunction with the general public being able to view the sites from Earth via powerful telescope.

I mean, that would settle the issue once an for all. And its probably the cheapest solution, and the most difficult, probably virtually impossible, to fake, . Retrofit two or three optical telescopes to be able to see the lunar surface, and we will know. Why this hasn't been done after claims it can be done... one can only speculate.

Originally posted by Philthy53


Kaysing has zero creditability.

Phil

And you concluded that based on what exactly?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

The article continues "But he (Nixon) cancelled this plan when NASA doctors expressed concern that [the astronauts] might catch a germ from the President."

So according to this article from the Toledo Blade July 19, 1969 there was a planned VIP dinner with Nixon at KSC on July 15th.

I will reiterate to be sure that I am clear. When the President travels there are always big preperations made. And from this miniscule snippet of newspaper reportage we should expect to find other evidence of this travel plan.

Thats the thing.
Its all bogus.
I just provided info on NASA's procedures with quarantine when it comes to (at least) Shuttle astronauts.
We see that NASA didnt use such quarantine measures for Apollo 11. Why not?
Yet we know how scared NASA was when astronauts returned that they would bring back an alien bug.

The point is, if the President wanted to meet them before they left, he could have:

July 24, 1969. Moon travelers - the Apollo 11 astronauts - inside a mobile quarantine facility aboard the U.S.S. Hornet somewhere in the Pacific. And the President of the United States. Dick somebody.

Nixon probably joked... "Suckers just believed we landed men on the moon! Next we'll have them thinking we can win in Vietnam!"