Have we landed on the moon?

[razark]

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

Maybe, maybe not. Please explain.

While you may see an occasional uniform, as there are a few active-duty military personnel at NASA, the agency is strictly a civilian one.  Yes, the do work closely with the military, but NASA is absolutely NOT military.  Further, most of the workforce is made up of contractors that work for private companies.

 

The fact that you do not understand the basic structure of the agency speaks volumes to what you do and do not understand about it.

[IncongruousGoat]

11 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

and of course NASA, stands for Never A Straight Answer, They just lie to us all the time.

If you're going to claim that, then can you please provide a specific example, with extensive citations from reliable sources, of a time when NASA has knowingly lied to the public at large? NASA is not in the business of spreading falsehoods. They're in the business of exploring space. Lying about their activities is not in their best interest.

[ADreamerwithinADream]

Well let's see.

razark wrote:

Quote

While you may see an occasional uniform, as there are a few active-duty military personnel at NASA, the agency is strictly a civilian one.  Yes, the do work closely with the military, but NASA is absolutely NOT military.  Further, most of the workforce is made up of contractors that work for private companies.

nasa itself disagrees with you here:

 

Quote

The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of chapter 17 of title 35 of the United States Code.

to be found here:

https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

If you look at the webpage, please count the number 'defense' . it willl be 18 times!

Read the whole page and the conclusion is inevitable.

So, again, yes, it IS a military organization.

 

or in other words:

 

Quote

In his 'Dark Mission the Secret History of NASA' (2007) www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HoaglandR1.php Richard Hoagland shows that NASA was all along a military organisation, which only appeared to be civilian: 
'Sec 305 i. NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the US for the purpose of chapter 17, Title 35 of the US code’ (founding NASA charter).
A further section 205 says that NASA information can be classified ‘for reasons of national security.’ The US military operates on concepts of security, loyalty, need-to-know, plausible lies etc. – one should not expect to get ‘the truth’ out of it. (p.II)

of course I know this will be denied. But let's face it. facts are facts.

It also explains the lies by nasa.That is just how the military operates!

[Nathair]

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

Maybe, maybe not. Please explain.

He meant that NASA is not, in fact, a military organisation. Neither is the ESA, CSA, etc.

NASA is an independent branch of the Federal Government, the ESA is an intergovernmental body, the CSA is under the purview of the Innovation, Science and Technological Development Ministry, etc.

[ADreamerwithinADream]

Nathair,

 

Please read the page on the history of nase. see above,

it shows very clearly that it is a military organisation.

Hence all th lies by nasa. that is just in a days work!

As I said, people don't seem to be able to handle that and are going to deny that,

 

so be it.

[ADreamerwithinADream]

Nathair, 

sorry to say but look it op in different sources, ok? No hard feelings, ok?

[peadar1987]

@ADreamerwithinADream, setting aside for a moment whether or not NASA are a military organisation, can we agree that the ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA and the CNSA are all independent bodies from the US government. JAXA and the ESA are completely nonmilitary. All of those agencies, with all of their expertise and experience, believe that it is possible to go to the moon. Why would they lie about that to protect NASA?

[KerikBalm]

@ADreamerwithinADream

You cite hoagland? that's the least credible source there is.

Did you look up the code mentioned. Your quote says "for the purposes of chapter 17....." not for all purposes... just that one section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-17

It simply comes down to the fact that spaceflight technology is inextricably linked to ICBM technology, so the technology developed has to be treated as if it came from a defense agency, and needs to be reviewed to see if it can be released to the public.

Its not some conspiracy, its just that they didn't want NASA to be telling Joe Blow how to make an ICBM.

 

[razark]

I draw your attention to this section of your linked page:

Quote

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

Note the bold part, which explicitly states that Congress is creating a civilian agency.  The italicized portion shows that there is some overlap with DoD, but only under certain cases.  This is not enough to define NASA as a "military organization".

The section you quoted falls under the heading of "PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS" and means that for legal purposes, certain inventions may be considered secret, rather than being publicly available works of the Federal Government.  This only makes sense, since the difference between a space-launch rocket and a missile is where the guidance system tells it to go.

 

However, is it is a military organization, can you explain why my father, with 30+ years at NASA, retiring as Chief Engineer for Shuttle, is still only a Sergeant in the USMC?

[ADreamerwithinADream]

peadar1987

I haven't looked into this (yet), but maybe they are not so independant as you might think.

Kerikbalm.

Maybe Hoagland is not credible. maybe he is. BUT he pointed to valid information.

oh and btw talking about nasa, it you feel they are 'credible' then you are bound to believe every lie they tell, right?

I feel nasa is far ftom 'credible' they lie about anything, including the moonlandings which were so obviously fake. Tje more you look into it the clearet ir gets. It was just one huge hoax.

 

so what?

I alwasy have to laugh when I see those fake moonrocks! It really is hilarious.

 

No we never went to the moon.

[razark]

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

Maybe Hoagland is not credible. maybe he is. BUT he pointed to valid information.

As pointed out by two of us already, the information he cites is not valid toward the argument that he (and by extension, you) is making.

 

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

I feel nasa is far ftom 'credible' they lie about anything...

You still have yet to provide any reasoning to support this.

 

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

...the moonlandings which were so obviously fake. ... It was just one huge hoax.

Again, you still have yet to provide any reasoning to support this.

 

(Edited to remove a portion that I had misread earlier.)

[Frybert]

Thread reoppened, some posts have been removed. Pease debate the issue, not each other, leave the name calling out, and DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE PROFANITY FILTER. Thank you.

[Nathair]

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

it shows very clearly that it is a military organisation.

No it doesn't. NASA is intentionally and  specifically a non-military organization officially in contrast with DARPA which was created for military purposes.

[razark]

Woo hoo!  Open for business again.

 

Anyway, to address the point you're going to bring up again:

Many of the scientists that began work on many of the major rocket systems of the late 1940s and 1950s were brought over by Operation Paperclip, but not all.  Nor were they founders of NASA.  That would be the U.S. government.  The Germans were working for the Army, but were later brought over to NASA.  The fact that any of these Germans may or may not have been members of A Certain Political Party That Must Not Be Named is very irrelevant to the moon landings, however.

[Motokid600]

Read this.   http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.html

Now watch this. 

Now tell my we didnt land on the moon. Make sure to elaborate and explain yourself in detail.

[Nathair]

4 minutes ago, razark said:

Many of the scientists that began work on many of the major rocket systems of the late 1940s and 1950s were brought over by Operation Paperclip, but not all.  Nor were they founders of NASA.  That would be the U.S. government.  The Germans were working for the Army, but were later brought over to NASA.

That'd be NACA you're talking about. In 1958 a specific decision was made to separate the military and civilian aspects of advanced research. NACA was dissolved and NASA (civilian) and DARPA (military) were created.

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, ADreamerwithinADream said:

I haven't looked into this (yet), but maybe they are not so independant as you might think.

In other words, "I admit not knowing anything about this, but I think you're wrong, therefore I'm right". So many fallacies I don't even know where to begin. Do you honestly think that type of argument would win you any respect or credibility anywhere in the eyes of anybody?

Quote

 

oh and btw talking about nasa, it you feel they are 'credible' then you are bound to believe every lie they tell, right?

Uhh... no? That is not how it works. It's not "everything they say is true and they always tell the full story" or "nothing they ever say is true". Statements have to be judged on their individual merits, even when coming from a trusted source. You're trying reduce it into a black-or-white issue, and a ridiculous one at that. That's another fallacy. Probably two.

Quote

 

I feel nasa is far ftom 'credible' they lie about anything, including the moonlandings which were so obviously fake. Tje more you look into it the clearet ir gets. It was just one huge hoax.

"I believe I am right but I'm not going to give you any arguments." Again, it's like you have no idea whatsoever about how to make your case sound the least bit credible. Did you really think the strategy of "I'm right, but won't tell you why" is going to get you anywhere? It honestly makes you look like an idiot, no matter what case you're arguing. If you used the same style of arguments to try to convince me that Wednesday comes after Tuesday, I'd still check the calendar to make sure you weren't wrong. You're speaking like you don't even have a basic grasp on the concept of logic, and that makes a compelling case that you're not understanding what you're talking about either. If you can't even talk about your case, you probably can't know a lot about it either.

Quote

 

I alwasy have to laugh when I see those fake moonrocks! It really is hilarious.

What about them? Again, see above. You have yet to make an argument. Any argument. There's no substance. Just dumb statements backed up by nothing.

Quote

 

No we never went to the moon.

The number of reasons why I should believe you after reading your post is literally negative. A guy who argues like that is either pretending to be very, very stupid, or the genuine deal. You would have sounded a lot more credible if you just stuck to that one sentence, instead of undermining your credibility by posting several lines of repurposed bovine waste first.

 

Also, learn to use the quote function. It's not hard. Not using proper quotes is the forum equivalent of showing up to an auditorium debate with an unbuttoned shirt and untied shoelaces. The audience will automatically assume you're too dumb to figure out how these basic things work, and make further assumptions about your level of intelligence (or trolling) from there on.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Codraroll

[munlander1]

21 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Also, learn to use the quote function

Instead of that which was very rude, you could have said "If you want to quote someone, hit the button at the bottom of the post that says "quote" or highlight what you want and a "quote" button will appear."

 

Also @ADreamerwithinADream An argument is a lot stronger if you back it up with reasoning. If someone says (I just making this up) "electric cars are stupid" no one can respond to it. If you say "I think electric cars are not beneficial because reason 1, 2, and 3." Then some one can say " Well, counter reason 1,2,3." It allows an argument to expand. 

Edited February 12, 2017 by munlander1

[Snark]

Howdy folks,

Just a note to let you know that further tidying up has been needed here.  There was a whole irrelevant sub-plot about what is or isn't an "ad hominem" argument.  It's been snipped out in its entirety.

I know I don't have to point this out because we all know the rules of civilized debate (right?), and we've all read the forum guidelines (right?), but just to make sure, I'll be bluntly explicit here:

• It's perfectly fine to disagree with what a person says.
• It's perfectly fine to attack a person's argument.  For example, citing evidence to show that it's factually incorrect, or pointing out that the argument isn't citing evidence of its own.
• However, it's not okay to attack the person themselves, no matter how unreasonable or wrong you may think they are.  Debate the post, not the poster, please.
• If you think someone is behaving so inappropriately that they're violating forum rules, don't say anything at all about it publicly.  Just report the post, which will ping the moderator team, and we can take a look and decide what action, if any, needs to be taken.  It's what we're for.
• Arguing about the topic (in this case, "did we go to the moon?") is fine.  Arguing about arguing is not, because it's off-topic.

Thank you for your understanding.

[razark]

9 minutes ago, Nathair said:

That'd be NACA you're talking about. In 1958 a specific decision was made to separate the military and civilian aspects of advanced research. NACA was dissolved and NASA (civilian) and DARPA (military) were created.

Talking about von Braun specifically, he was working with the Army Ballistic Missile Agency when NASA was founded.  Two years later, he and his team were transferred to NASA.

 

Personally, I've never really looked at the history of NACA.  Did von Braun actually work for that group?

[Nathair]

1 minute ago, razark said:

Personally, I've never really looked at the history of NACA.  Did von Braun actually work for that group?

Yup.

[adsii1970]

Von Braun did work on NACA projects; but even as he told the German government under Hitler, he believed rockets should never be used as weapons platforms. This haunted him throughout his life.

While the military does provide the bulk of NASA astronauts, NASA and its assets are civilian, just as is the Coast Guard (until the Department of Homeland Security was created, the USCG fell under the Treasury Department). And just like the Coast Guard, during a time of war and by legislative action of Congress, NASA's assets can be transferred and used by the DoD.

Until the STS program was cancelled, the DoD had to pay for it's cargo to go up on the shuttle, just as any other non-U.S. NGO or foreign originating cargo.

In the movie, Armageddon, the only way that the Houston Space Center (Mission Control) would have been taken over by the Air Force is by the Vice President (the executive branch member who oversees NASA) and Congress (two Senate committees and one Congressional joint committee) in complete agreement, as the legislation that dissolved NACA and created NASA states.

NASA has, in its history, never been administered by the DoD or its agencies.

 

Also, the reason the legislation that was passed names the Vice President as the executive branch head of NASA is because the Vice President, by the duties defined in the Constitution and tradition, is outside the military chain of command.

Edited February 13, 2017 by adsii1970

[IncongruousGoat]

@ADreamerwithinADream

You seem to be under the impression that we believe the landings happened out of some blind faith in NASA, and can be convinced otherwise by simply hearing that someone thinks the landings didn't occur. This is very much not the case. We all have a whole host of very good reasons to think that the landings happened as described. If you want to have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of convincing anyone here of anything, you are going to have to provide an extremely large amount of well-researched information. So far you've provided one citation from a source of questionable reliability regarding a blatantly misinterpreted piece of legalese. Please, either make a serious effort to defend your point or stop wasting everyone's time.

 

 

[razark]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

the Houston Space Center (Mission Control)

We prefer "Johnson Space Center", and there's a hell of a lot more going on than just Mission Control.

[kerbiloid]

What's bad if NASA were by definition civilian, in fact military? What that flame is at all about?

Is CIA civilian?