1971 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 27 September 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.

To review what I said...


The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...
  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf

From pg.24 of the document...

"During the IGY and after, many foreign nationals took the Minitrack course at Blossom Point. In fact, the willingness of NRL and NASA to employ and train foreign nationals at the Minitrack and STADAN stations greatly eased the task of placing U.S. facilities on foreign soil."

On page 258..

The desire to make and keep this country's man-inspace program civilian in character has  been instrumental

in helping NASA gain and retain management of the MSFN.

On pg. 84..

...it would be necessary to construct some tracking stations in foreign countries for comprehensive coverage of the flight.

And to some countries, U.S. military installations were out of the question at that time; for these countries suspected

that the proposed tracking radars might also watch missiles and spy satellites. On the other hand, a purely civilian

program with scientific goals that the whole world could  embrace would be much more palatable, even desirable. The

fact was that a purely military, worldwide network with frequent astronaut contacts (short deadtime) could not be built.

This consideration was one of many that led Congress to draw up the Space Act specifying a civilian space agency.

So foreign involvement was an important consideration, right from the very inception of NASA itself. NASA was deemed a civilian agency, rather than a military agency, so foreign countries - like Australia - would welcome NASA's presence.
.
They even state how employing and training foreign nationals was used in that way.  

So, there's the evidence you requested for my original claim

Edited by turbonium, 07 October 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[turbonium]

flyingswan, on 06 October 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Is everything easier to see when you get closer to it?

Why exactly do you think archaeologists use aerial photography to locate sites?

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety. In your anaolgy, the archaeolgical site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it, just like the lunar disturbance would be.

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

Do you undestand the distinction here?

Edited by turbonium, 07 October 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[gort.]

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

Project Horizon

excerpt:

Reason for Requirement.

• The national policy on outer space includes the objective of development and exploiting US outer space capabilities as needed to achieve scientific, military, and potential purposes. The OCB Operations Plan to implement this policy establishes a specific program to obtain scientific data on space environment out to the vicinity of the moon, including the moon's gravitational and magnetic fields and to explore the characteristics of the moon's surface. There are no known technica1 barriers to the establishment of a manned installation on the moon.
  
• The establishment of a manned base of operations on the moon has tremendous military and scientific potential. Because invaluable scientific, military, and political prestige will come to the nation that first establishes a lunar base, it is imperative that the United States be first.
  
• The full extent of the military potential cannot be predicted, but it is probable that observation of the earth and space vehicles from the moon will prove to be highly advantageous. By using a moon-to- earth base line, space surveillance by triangulation promises great range and accuracy. The presently contemplated earth-based tracking., and control network will be inadequate for the deep space operations contemplated. Military communications may be greatly improved by the use of a moon-based relay station. The employment of moon-based weapons systems against earth or space targets may prove to be feasible and desirable. Moon-based military power will be a strong deterrent to war because of the extreme difficulty, from the enemy point of view, of eliminating our ability to retaliate. Any military operations on the moon will be difficult to counter by the enemy because of the difficulty of his reaching the moon, if our forces arc already present and have means of countering a landing or of neutralising any hostile forces that have landed. The situation is reversed if hostile forces are permitted to arrive first. They can militarily counter our landings and attempt to deny us politically the use of their property.
  
• The scientific advantages are equally difficult to predict but are highly promising. Study of the universe, of the moon, and of the space environment will all be aided by scientific effort on the moon. Perhaps the most promising scientific advantage is the usefulness of a moon base for further explorations into space. Materials on the moon itself may prove to be valuable and commercially exploitable.

4. Organisational Concept.
The establishment of the outpost should be a special project having authority and priority similar to the Manhattan Project in World War II. Once established, the lunar base will be operated under the control of a unified space command. Space, or certainly that portion of outer space encompassing the earth and the moon, will be considered a military theatre. The control of all United States military forces by unified commands is already established and military operations in space should be no exception. A unified space command should control and utilise, besides the lunar base, operationa1 military satellites and space vehicles, space surveillance systems, and the logistical support thereof. Other space commands might be organised as our operations extended to translunar space.
5. Degree of Urgency.
To be second to the Soviet Union in establishing an outpost on the moon would be disastrous to our nation's prestige and in turn to our democratic philosophy. Although it is contrary to United States policy, the Soviet Union in establishing the first permanent base, may claim the moon or critical areas thereof for its own. Then a subsequent attempt to establish an outpost by the United States might be considered and propagandised as a hostile act. The Soviet Union in propaganda broadcasts has announced the 50th anniversary of the present government (1967) will be celebrated by Soviet citizens on the moon. The National Space policy intelligence estimate is that the Soviets could land on the moon by 1968.
6. Maintenance and Supply Implications.
The maintenance and supply effort to support a lunar base will be high by present standards. Continued delivery of equipment and means of survival will be required and each delivery will be costly. Every conceivable solution for minimising the logistic effort must be explored. Maximum use of any oxygen or power source on the moon through regenerative or other techniques must be exploited. Means of returning safely to earth must be available to the occupants of the outpost.
7. Training and Personnel Implications.
The number of personnel on the base itself trill be quite small, at least initially, but the total number of personnel supporting the effort may be quite large. Until further study is made a realistic qualitative and quantitative personnel estimate cannot be provided. The training requirements of earth-based support personnel would resemble those of personnel in long range ballistic missile units and radar tracking systems. For the relatively small number of personnel actually transported to the moon base training requirements would be exacting in many fields.
8. Additional Items and Requirements.
A complete family of requirements and supporting research and development projects will be necessary to develop all of the supporting equipment to establish a lunar base. Very high thrust boosters, space vehicles, intermediate space stations, space dwellings, clothing and consumable supplies will have to be developed.

[turbonium]

MID, on 06 October 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Makes perfect sense to me!
Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times,  then it's just fictional.

No. You just keep making the same unsubstantiated claims. iver and over again.

We already know you can't see the disturbance in close-range photos, and that is's visible in photos from orbit.

It's the reasons you claim for this that needs to be proven. You claim it's due to lighting angle, etc. - but you have never shown  evidence, or sources, to back it uo.

All you do is say how it's been explained to me, and that I should call NASA about it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

Why can't you show me even one single source explaining this 'phenomenon'?

Because it doesn't exist, obviously.

[turbonium]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

REJECTED.  Unbelievable hypocrisy.  Turbonium just reeled off a pile of statements without logic, let alone a single source, and he then has the hide to  ask others to source their claims when they HAVE been doing so?   Disgraceful.

They HAVE been sourcing their claims? Good to hear that. So now, please tell me exactly where they showed sources for their claim of this 'phenomenon'. I can't wait to see it....

[Chrlzs]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety.

REJECTED.  In what way is this relevant?  This is simplistic handwaving and has not addressed the issues in any meaningful way.
Given that ANY feature's visibility is dependent on:
- the extent of the image in the field of view
- the nature of illumination (intensity, colour, angle)
- the nature of the feature (reflectivity/texture/etc)
ALL of those aspects must be considered.

Quote

In your anaolgy{sic}, the archaeolgical{sic} site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it

REJECTED. This is a silly and unjustified extension of the analogy as again it depends on the nature and size of the feature.  Handwaving and wasting time.

Quote

just like the lunar disturbance would be.

REJECTED.  Without defining ALL the characteristics of the features it is NOT "just like" anything.

Quote

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

ACCEPTED.  If this is obvious to you, why aren't all the other characteristics that define visibility?
UNTIL you are willing to discuss them properly, your position is irrelevant and ignorant.

Quote

Do you undestand{sic} the distinction here?

Everyone else here seems to get this and you are refusing to debate properly, so it is very obviously YOU who (deliberately, it seems) 'doesn't understand'.

[Chrlzs]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

We already know you can't see the disturbance in close-range photos

Before we show you AGAIN the images that prove that is a bald-faced lie, will you explain why you keep lying and ignoring evidence placed in front of you?

If you refuse then I think there needs to be some moderator reports.

[turbonium]

Here's another item from the document I cited earlier..

The most vivid way to describe the

African situation is to quote sections from a trip report

made by Langley's Ray W. Hooker, who was largely

responsible for the preparation of the Mercury Network sites

"In the case of the Kano and Zanzibar sites, the

British have sold the local government on the

fact that this is an American experiment, harmless

in nature and would contribute to the scientific

knowledge of the world. In both the Nigerian

and Zanzibar governments there is the

general native population which is capable of

believing almost anything, and getting quite

excited about it".

Het! Let's tell the Africans it's a great idea, and entirely harmless. They're so gullible, they'll believe almost anything!  

[turbonium]

Chrlzs, on 07 October 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Before we show you AGAIN the images that prove that is a bald-faced lie, will you explain why you keep lying and ignoring evidence placed in front of you?

If you refuse then I think there needs to be some moderator reports.

MID said..

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"

So MID is lying, too?

And I asked you to show where they sourced the 'phenomenon'. How about it?

Edited by turbonium, 07 October 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Chrlzs]

Gort, TL;DR.  Why post such a ridiculous wall of text?

gort., on 07 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.

WHY exactly is it interesting?

Quote

Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space

1. How much?
2. What type?
3. What type of shielding is effective?

In other words, I am calling you out - do you have the knowledge of that which you speak?  If so, answer those questions and we'll discuss this fully.  If yiou can't, or get them wrong, then your opinion is irrelevant.

Quote

as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.

As above, please don't handwave.  Put some numbers to that alleged 'insurmountability'.  After all, the amount and type of radiation was quite well understood at the time of Apollo and is even  better understood nowadays.  The ISS and many satellites pass through some of the high energy parts of the VA Belts quite regularly.  Do you believe the ISS is a hoax too?

Quote

But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

Why?  How much do you think they would cost, and who would pay?

[Chrlzs]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

MID said..
"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"

Turbonium, CITE your quotes.  CITE YOUR QUOTES.  Not doing so is intellectual laziness at it's worst, and is the usual methodology of those who would deceive and misinform.

I'm happy to look at what MID said IN CONTEXT but I have no intention of encouraging your disgraceful behavior.  BTW, did you happen to miss the qualifier "clearly" in the sentence you are 'quoting'?  Why do you think he used that word?  I know why he used it - it isn't a difficult concept.

And if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually debate the topic properly, you too would see why it can be difficult to see CLEARLY in close ups.

Quote

And I asked you to show where they sourced the 'phenomenon'. How about it?

But you DIDN'T STATE what particular phenomenon or aspect of it you were disputing - ie MORE intellectual laziness.  Please DO SO if you expect to be taken seriously.

[Obviousman]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

To review what I said...

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...
  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf

From pg.24 of the document...

"During the IGY and after, many foreign nationals took the Minitrack course at Blossom Point. In fact, the willingness of NRL and NASA to employ and train foreign nationals at the Minitrack and STADAN stations greatly eased the task of placing U.S. facilities on foreign soil."

On page 258..

The desire to make and keep this country's man-inspace program civilian in character has  been instrumental

in helping NASA gain and retain management of the MSFN.

On pg. 84..

...it would be necessary to construct some tracking stations in foreign countries for comprehensive coverage of the flight.

And to some countries, U.S. military installations were out of the question at that time; for these countries suspected

that the proposed tracking radars might also watch missiles and spy satellites. On the other hand, a purely civilian

program with scientific goals that the whole world could  embrace would be much more palatable, even desirable. The

fact was that a purely military, worldwide network with frequent astronaut contacts (short deadtime) could not be built.

This consideration was one of many that led Congress to draw up the Space Act specifying a civilian space agency.

So foreign involvement was an important consideration, right from the very inception of NASA itself. NASA was deemed a civilian agency, rather than a military agency, so foreign countries - like Australia - would welcome NASA's presence.
.
They even state how employing and training foreign nationals was used in that way.  

So, there's the evidence you requested for my original claim
    

Amazing! Once more, you have done it: you have taken a statement which disproves your assertions and claim they support your claims!

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety. In your anaolgy, the archaeolgical site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it, just like the lunar disturbance would be.

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

Do you undestand the distinction here?

I don't think you're getting my point.

In a field, you can see some patches of grass are lighter and others darker, but it takes the aerial view to show that some, but not all, of the darker patches outline a building's foundations.

On the moon, you can see that some parts of the surface are lighter and others darker, but it takes the orbital view to show that some, but not all, of the lighter patches combine to form a halo around the LM.

In both cases, the variation seen close up swamps the overall pattern which can only be seen from above.  Your claim that if it's visible from above then it's visible close-up is incorrect.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

To review what I said...

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...
  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf

What does that have to do with claims of Apollo moon hoaxes? You continue to ignore the fact that other countries have confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon mission and that facts and evidence have already trashed the claim that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

Your arguments have been successfully refuted time after time.

Quote

Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment as left on the Moon by Apollo 11




Apollo 11 landing site photographed  by LRO


Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.

After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the moon.

• 
  
  Apollo 14 landing site, photograph by LRO
  
• 
  
• 
  
  Apollo 12 landing site

Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show

Images taken by a Nasa spacecraft show that the American flags planted in the Moon's soil by Apollo astronauts are mostly still standing.
The photos from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) show the flags are still casting shadows - except the one planted during the Apollo 11 mission.
This matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being knocked over by engine exhaust as Apollo 11 lifted off.

LRO was designed to produce the most detailed maps yet of the lunar surface.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19050795

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 October 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

. I can't wait to see it....

Ok!

Quote

Apollo 15 Lunar Module photographed from the Command Module during mission:


Images from the JAXA (Japanese Space Agency) Selene/Kaguya Probe

Blowup of area showing exhaust plume halo

Images from he Indian Space Agency’s Chandrayaan-1 Spacecraft

Comparison of the various instrument cameras on the probe: