The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread

  • 140 Replies
  • 15514 Views
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #120 on: May 22, 2012, 02:32:32 AM »


So, Tom is saying (in other words) "there no evidences disproving fakery/murder, therefore there was probably some fakery/murder.



I didn't get that from his post at all.  I read it as being evidenced by unexplainable inconsistancies rather than proven based on no evidence at all.   
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #121 on: May 22, 2012, 02:49:33 AM »
So, Tom is saying (in other words) "there no evidences disproving fakery/murder, therefore there was probably some fakery/murder.
I didn't get that from his post at all.  I read it as being evidenced by unexplainable inconsistancies rather than proven based on no evidence at all.

OK,
It's a rather cliche mafia tactic. They were killed with baseball bats or knives and their bodies were put into their car and positioned on train tracks so that their bodies would be mutilated beyond recognition once the train hit.
We have no evidence that disproves this fanciful scenario, therefore (in Tom's brain) it happened.

NASA deceiving us is a simpler explanation than space ships exploring the solar system and robots which explore the martian surface.
As observers, we have no evidence that disproves NASA is deceiving us. Therefore (in Tom's brain) it happened.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #122 on: May 22, 2012, 03:08:18 AM »
I would say that it is exactly the opposite.  In Tom's brain, it happened based on research and study he has done.  You can disagree with him all you want, but you cannot say that the man does not do his homework.  Therefore since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary he would have no reason to be persuaded otherwise. 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #123 on: May 22, 2012, 03:15:02 AM »
I would say that it is exactly the opposite.  In Tom's brain, it happened based on research and study he has done.  You can disagree with him all you want, but you cannot say that the man does not do his homework.  Therefore since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary he would have no reason to be persuaded otherwise.

Tim Bishop is well know for his bold claims and his lack of proofs.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2012, 05:44:26 AM »
I would say that it is exactly the opposite.  In Tom's brain, it happened based on research and study he has done.  You can disagree with him all you want, but you cannot say that the man does not do his homework.  Therefore since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary he would have no reason to be persuaded otherwise.

And... there's the problem.  Tom has provided no positive supporting evidence. Instead we are invited to disprove his outlandish claims, which we cannot.  Tom therefore thinks he has won the argument.  But he hasn't even provided an argument in the first place.

He also makes a telling mistake by going into too much detail: "They were killed with baseball bats or knives".  I cannot prove they were not killed this way, so Tom has won, in Tom's brain.

And that's the great thing.  You don't have to know anything about what is discussed,  nor read entire threads.  All you do is look at the latest argument.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2012, 10:40:20 AM »
Quote from: garygreen
You're still asking the wrong kind of question.  You're just asking, "Does this seem likely to you?"  It requires us to make too many assumptions, like, "Things that appear unlikely are unlikely."  The way you word the question affects how it can be answered, and your examples illustrate this point.  Your first question has an easy answer because we all have an experience of terrestrial transportation.  We've all been in a car, even if we haven't been in a race car.  The object is directly within our experience.

Great. I'm glad you agree.

Quote from: garygreen
Your second question illustrates how problematic this phrasing is because its object is something of which we have no direct experience.  The question doesn't even allow us to consider the evidence, it just asks, "Doesn't that sound too complicated to be true?"  We'll always answer "yes" to these kinds of questions because we rarely have any direct, relevant experience of the matter.

Since you agree that the answer is yes, then great, we're still on track.

Quote from: garygreen
However, if cut right to the heart of the matter and ask, "What is the simpler explanation for our observations, that NASA is deceiving the public about space flight, or that NASA is not deceiving the public about space flight?"

It doesn't matter if you phrase it that way. NASA deceiving us is a simpler explanation than space ships exploring the solar system and robots which explore the martian surface.

Quote from: garygreen
Think of the North Korea example: "What's the simpler explanation, that North Korea is lying about its rail gun, or that it's being honest about its rail gun?"  Without knowing anything about rail guns, I can think about my personal experiences with human behavior and conclude, for a variety of reasons, that North Korea is probably lying about its rail gun.

Correct. The simplest explanation is that NASA is lying to us.

We do not agree.  I think that you are asking the question in a loaded way to construct the conclusion that you want to hear.  That's not an honest inquiry.  You make a number of unfounded assumptions, including the conclusion (that space flight is per se improbable or unlikely). 

You also assume from the beginning that all of the observations I have of space flight (first-hand accounts, biographies, images, other data, etc.) are not genuine.  One should not make that assumption before inquiring into the legitimacy of the data.

In other words, since you don't provide any analysis of why space travel is preposterous on its face, we simply have to take you at your word that it is too complicated to be real.  Again, that's not an honest inquiry.  You're just telling yourself what you want to hear.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: garygreen
1.  Your own wiki isn't exactly solid evidence of your claims.  It asserts that Baron believed that the space program was being faked.  I cannot find a single piece of evidence to support this claim.  Not one.  I've now read both his testimony to congress and the reports he leaked to the press, and I can't find a single mention of fraud.

Baron claims that everything is run in a compartmentalized manner where people are shifter around from job to job, and where the quality control is extremely poor, and that things seem to be built for show more than anything. Baron says that a real space program wouldn't be this way, which is why he's complaining to Congress about it.

Quote from: garygreen
2.  Baron's original report was leveled almost exclusively against North American Aviation, not NASA.  Check it out yourself.  Interestingly, the report is hosted on NASA's website.  It seems odd that they are hosting a document over which they once murdered someone...

This isn't a report. That's only a two page brief he wrote. His 500 page anti-NASA Congressional report went missing.

NASA is hosting it (assuming that this is even an unedited version) because they are trying to discredit Baron. At the top of the page they call him a bunch of names.

Quote from: garygreen
3.  Baron's report was about safety concerns, not a fake Apollo program.  So was his congressional testimony.  In fact, in his testimony, he explicitly states that he believes NASA does have the capacity to reach and land on the moon.

Sure, my little nephew has the capacity to become a billionaire and build a sprawling underground city. But I don't see what relevance that has, when his tunneling abilities are presently limited to digging in a sandbox.

Quote from: garygreen
4.  You're assuming that his missing report would have been bad for NASA.  His first report barely mentions NASA.  I don't get why the second one would be different.

500 pages explains a bit more of NASA's fraudulence than a 2 page brief.

Quote from: garygreen
5.  Baron and his family were hit by a train in their car.  I don't even get how you could murder someone in such a manner.

It's a rather cliche mafia tactic. They were killed with baseball bats or knives and their bodies were put into their car and positioned on train tracks so that their bodies would be mutilated beyond recognition once the train hit.

You forgot #6.  It doesn't make much sense to kill him after he testifies to congress, does it?  This is important.  If you were going to blow the whistle on a fake NASA, wouldn't a congressional inquiry be your best shot at going public with your most conclusive data?  Why would he have held anything back? 

1.  Nowhere in his congressional testimony does Baron say, "things seem to be built for show more than anything," or, "a real space program wouldn't be this way."  I can't find any sentence in his testimony even close to that.  He is very critical of North American Aviation, the company he actually worked for, not NASA, and his criticisms are clearly centered on safety concerns, not that he thinks fraud is occurring.  Show me where you find him saying that NASA is fraudulent.

Everything that I have read about Thomas Baron so far universally indicated that his concerns were exclusively safety related.  He testified before congress because he leaked his report to the press after the Apollo 1 fire.  Three astronauts were killed.  Safety was becoming somewhat of an issue.

2.  Have you read the 55-page report?  I don't mean that sarcastically.  I can't find the full 55-page report on google, but if you have it perhaps you could host it for me.

If, however, you haven't actually read the 55-page report and are just speculating, I'm curious to know what available evidence leads you to conclude that the longer report focuses on NASA instead of NAA?  The only documents I can find are almost exclusively focused on safety concerns at NAA.  I think that you are assuming the conclusion again.

3.  I don't get the nephew analogy.  Here is Baron's direct testimony on the question: "Mr. Baron, if things were really as bad as you pictured them by the things that, you have said to this committee in your report, do you believe we would ever have gotten a shot off to the moon? Do you think we ever would have had one successful shot?"

Baron: "Certainly, sir."

He goes on to say that not all of the missions would have been successful, and he claims that Apollo is a failure.  Not a fraud.  A failure.  He says this in 1967, well before Apollo 7 and 8, mere months after the Apollo 1 fire.  Most congress people thought Apollo was a failure at this point.  That's what the congressional investigation was about.  How did none of those people ever find evidence of fraud?

4.  You're assuming the contents of the 500-page report.  The evidence we have indicates otherwise, that his report was targeted at NAA, the company he worked for.  And, again, his concerns weren't that NASA is fake, so it's irrelevant anyway.

However, even if it was targeted at NASA, it's unlikely that NASA would feel threatened by it.  His congressional testimony is vague and almost entirely hearsay.  He admits that most of his information comes from anonymous phone calls and conversations with other engineers, and not things he actually witnessed.

5.  Again, without any evidence, you're just assuming the conclusion you want and inventing ways to fit the facts into your preconceived notions.  It's not very zetetic.

There is not any evidence that he was murdered.  At all.  And, it would be way easier/less risky to simply discredit him.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: garygreen
If the assumptions are wrong, I fail to see how we could derive mathematics from them that is convincing to all of the mathematicians and scientists who study them every single day for the last century or so.

Well, the exact math used for orbital flight isn't even published or publicly available. I don't see what math they would study.

Dynamics of Earth Orbiting Formations, from JPL.
Equations of Motion for use in Space Navigation, NASA, 1966.
Orbital Mechanics.

This is obviously just a quick sample.  Orbital mechanics is well understood.  The equations are not a secret.  The history of the derivation of these equations is equally well understood.

However, I don't get why you would be surprised that the US federal government would keep some rocket secrets.  There is good reason not to openly proliferate schematics for rockets that could just as well be ICBMs as orbital lifters.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The fact that there are things which cannot be explained absolutely is evidence of a conspiracy.

If they can't be explained, then they aren't evidence of anything.  They're inexplicable.  That's what that means.  Maybe they're evidence of equipment malfunctions, or data errors, or even just a misunderstanding of the data.  It's not evidence.  By definition.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: garygreen
My guess is that you're going to suggest that bad bookkeeping is the means by which the conspirators are stealing the money.  This makes little sense given how much attention it brings on NASA.  If you're trying to hide a huge secret about NASA, it hardly makes sense to constantly have congress investigating you and imposing new financial regulations.  You don't want PricewaterhouseCoopers, or Ernst and Young, or Arthur Andersen looking through your books.

That's right, you don't. NASA decided to not have any books at all and play the incompetence card, and they're alleged to be the most meticulous and advanced scientific organization in human history.

NASA keeps financial records.  None of their audits have ever revealed that NASA simply keeps no books.  It might seem unlikely that NASA would be so bad at bookkeeping, but when you consider the potential for cost overruns, unexpected changes in the cost of materials, and the usual poor management and inefficiencies that accompany many government projects, it makes a lot of sense.  NASA isn't the only government organization to have trouble balancing its checkbook.  Welcome to public enterprise.

Hell, it might even be because of financial fraud (hard to imagine it going on for so many decades), but that still wouldn't be evidence of a fake space program.  It would be evidence of fraud.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: garygreen
There have been plenty of audits.  Since 1999, NASA has been audited by PwC, E&Y, Andersen, and the GAO.  they've probably been audited and investigated many, many times since the 1960s, including by Walter Mondale and the congressional investigations that proceeded the Apollo 1 accident.

Provide the source of these other financial audits, please.

2010 Audit Opinion, Ernst and Young  This contains a table of the previous ten years of audits.  As you can see, they are audited every year by an external accounting firm.  E&Y also outline where NASA's budget problems come from.
CFO article detailing NASA's financial problems during PwC's 2004 audit.  They explain the source of NASA's bookkeeping woes in great detail. 
Arthur Andersen LLP Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1999

In conclusion, it just isn't practical to use NASA as a front to steal money.  If you did, you'd probably try and keep great books so you'd stop getting constantly audited by the GAO.  Being in the spotlight is not good for a conspiracy.  It can't operate that way.  It makes no sense.

All of these people would have to be lying.  And all of these people.  And all of  these authors are lying or have been duped.[/url]  None of the congressional hearings revealed that NASA was fake.  None of the audits.  No one has ever confessed.  no one has ever been caught.  All of the scientists have been tricked with fake data and fake math.  All of these movies have been made with fake images and fake videos, and all of the film crews who have worked on them have been lying.  For more than 50 years.  And not one person in a position to do so has ever blown the lid off of the conspiracy.  And the conspirators are taking this huge risk for money?  Haven't they ever heard of compound interest?  Wouldn't they have to already be super wealthy and powerful to pull something like this off?  Really, it strains the imagination.

So, what's seems more probable: that the most public conspiracy ever constructed has gone undetected for 60 years, or that, after centuries of scientific progress, someone invented a rocket? 
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2012, 01:23:58 PM »
Also, these two articles explain better than I ever could why such a conspiracy is virtually impossible.

This explains the relevance of Occam's Razor.
Quote
Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon.

Both NASA and the conspiracists offer explanations which fit the observable phenomena. But some Apollo conspiracy theories require us to believe in things like NASA death squads and top-secret soundstages in remote locations. There is no direct evidence for either of those. The possibility that these things -- if they existed -- might explain the conspiracists' observations is not proof that those things exist.

This explains the problem of scale.
Quote
In fact almost all that money went to the contractors who built the equipment. NASA itself doesn't build spaceships. It hires companies to build spaceships for it.

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

I encourage you to read the articles in full.  They're short.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2012, 02:15:44 PM »
Garrygreen, a very comprehensive and well set-out set of responses.  Waisted on Tom, I'm afraid.  I don't think he'll come back on this.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #128 on: May 28, 2012, 09:25:27 AM »
we know the planets are very small (at least the inner planets) because in realtion to the sun which is 300 M in diamater,
Mercury, venus and mars are extremely small, probably 1000 times smaller, making them only 30 Meters in diameter.

Now the gas planets (which probably are not planets and just dwarve stars) may be 100's - 1000M across,

i dont think nasa will like your potty mouth. you are saying here that they are in on the conspiracy.
here is your 30meter mars:



seems legit  ::)

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11685
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #129 on: May 28, 2012, 09:48:13 AM »
Squevil, I'm on my phone now so it is hard to put a link on here. Search fake Mars landing and you can see how they faked it, that picture is just a colorized pic of earth.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #130 on: May 28, 2012, 09:58:50 AM »
Squevil, I'm on my phone now so it is hard to put a link on here. Search fake Mars landing and you can see how they faked it, that picture is just a colorized pic of earth.

my point isnt if its fake or not. the point is iwant~ says mars is 30m, but he also says nasa is legit. you cant have both can you!?



if the picture was fake or not, it doesnt matter there are always people who refuse to believe in space travel because of religious reasons. people will try thier hardest to discredit actions that go against something they strongly believe in. becuase if they couldnt find any flaws in nasa then thier whole belief will be blow away and they will have nothing to live for and they may realise the truth.

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #131 on: May 31, 2012, 05:36:00 AM »
Squevil, I'm on my phone now so it is hard to put a link on here. Search fake Mars landing and you can see how they faked it, that picture is just a colorized pic of earth.

Of course you can prove your point?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11685
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #132 on: May 31, 2012, 06:03:02 AM »
Squevil, I'm on my phone now so it is hard to put a link on here. Search fake Mars landing and you can see how they faked it, that picture is just a colorized pic of earth.

Of course you can prove your point?
I wasn't expecting you to do any research.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #133 on: May 31, 2012, 06:57:47 AM »
Squevil, I'm on my phone now so it is hard to put a link on here. Search fake Mars landing and you can see how they faked it, that picture is just a colorized pic of earth.

Of course you can prove your point?
I wasn't expecting you to do any research.

By answering this, does it mean that you're going to patronize me, do not do any research, continue asserting unproved stuff and carry on?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2012, 12:31:20 PM »
Congratulations NASA on your latest achievement!
 
The Mars Curiosity Rover!

?

MrT

  • 211
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #135 on: August 06, 2012, 03:31:32 PM »
Congratulations NASA on your latest achievement!
 
The Mars Curiosity Rover!

Do you think NASA will notice that the flight distance was only a few thousand miles instead of the millions they expected (where was it going during all those months of flight?).  Do you think they will notice that the diameter of Mars is only 30 meters or so?  How about the fact that Mars is actually circling above the Earth (hard not to notice considering that if they point their cameras upwards at all they should be able to see the Earth filling the sky). 

It's amazing the mission has seen any success at all considering how drastically wrong they are about absolutely everything.

Sorry, but you can't seriously believe that NASA is doing what they say, but is also horrifically wrong about virtually all of the fundamentals of their field.
The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #136 on: August 09, 2012, 08:59:46 AM »
iwetmypantsovernasa has 1000 posts of this dribble, yet still claims the earth is flat.

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #137 on: August 09, 2012, 09:50:55 AM »
As a Zetetic we must first rule out a planar earth. Right now with all the evidence it go either way.
I may have been incorrect about the 30 Meters, It could be more like a mile in diameter,
Venus transits the Sun so we know it is only 30-50 meters in diameter, but Mars does not.
If Mars is much more farther than 3100 miles, than it could be as much as a mile in diameter,

but here is another possibilty, maybe Nasa is just getting it wrong again.
Maybe they accidently laned in the the Mojave Desert???

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/14361771-418/mars-crater-where-curiosity-rover-landed-looks-earth-like.html

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #138 on: August 09, 2012, 09:54:49 AM »
They're both deserts.  Of course they look alike.  It would be weird if it didn't look like the Mojave Desert.

It's irrelevant either way.  Amateur radio enthusiasts picked up telemetry from Curiosity on its way to Mars.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #139 on: August 09, 2012, 09:55:49 AM »
I am glad you debunked that article,

another victory for NASA!

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The NASA/Other Space Agencies Appreciation thread
« Reply #140 on: August 09, 2012, 08:37:08 PM »
As a Zetetic we must first rule out a planar earth.

nuff said