It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 28
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

Mr. smith, obm, and Choos have shed some light for me on certain questions. Still waiting for you


REALLY what about the claims re the panoramic pictures used by the hoax believers in error.

Please show ONE example were you have agreed with any of the above members FULLY on any point they have shown to you.




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

you are writing about Nixon's term in office more than about some Apollo hoax..


The Defenders didn't want to discuss the SSTV equipment explosion in Sydney Australia shortly before Apollo 11. Richard Nafzger recorded an audio history explaining how he was locked out of the building all weekend and when he went to switch on the SSTV equipment - it burned up.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

so SSTV equipment burnt up.. i dont see how that is related to some hoax or any hoax for that matter..



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And you don't want to discuss how it was repaired in plenty of time. A lack of reply to you does not indicate an unwillingness to discuss the topic. It may just indicate that your interjection was pointless and not worth the effort.

Does Nafzger say Apollo was faked?

Where were Australia's dishes pointing?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And a simple reading of tthe a oral history shows that it it was a simple wiring error caused by confusion between US and Australian systems.

Your use of 'explosion' is a little bit exaggerated. He does use the term 'blew up', but imo it is figurative, not literal, given what he says before that. It was also 3 months before launch - hardly last ast minute.

The rest of his history is very interesting. People who don't understand how the TV signal got to Earth and then to their TVs would do well to read it.
edit on 7-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: extra detail



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

as per usual - you offer no explaination of what this event meants

sure - there was a fire in an equimpent room that destroyed boadcast gear - no one disputes that

but HOW did that facilitate a hoax ?

that is what is mising from all your " arguments "



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You Apollo believers always have some explanations, what was your explanation on this ?




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

whats your explaination for it ?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
You Apollo believers always have some explanations, what was your explanation on this ?



The scan rate happens all the time in analog when broadcasting a signal. That's why we use figural now. What you think the astronaut was see thru??



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

a reply to: ignorant_ape
whats your explaination for it ?


unfortunately,,a traumatic event has left me with the Sciophobia, therefore I'm powerless to render an adequate hypothesis ,but I'm sure the propagandists will interpret this particular shadow deficiency due too a spatial relationship on a flat surface ...




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

With any luck then this will scare you witless:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

It's a work in progress that one day I'll finish for the other missions. If you can' be bothered to read it, it contains actual measurements and workings out, rather than the babblings of tin-foil hatted nutjobs and made-up nonsense.

Shadows in Apollo media are not falling on a flat surface. It undulates. It rises and falls. The shadows move over time as the sun moves. The length of the shadows, and their movement, are totally consistent with the mission timings.

Still waiting for your posts chock full of damning evidence that you keep threatening.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

You didn't watch his video I suggest you do. It's about shadow people never thought of them being on the moon. Maybe they are alien space travelers. Either way I'm thinking we need to be careful I don't trust them.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
You Apollo believers always have some explanations, what was your explanation on this ?



Ah... what is your explanation? "It's fake" is not an explanation. How did this happen, do you suppose?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Ah... what is your explanation? "It's fake" is not an explanation. How did this happen, do you suppose?


I make a motion that you, or any other Apollo Defender, satisfy the other readers of this thread, by submitting the complete provenance and chain of custody for that film. I seriously doubt that you can handle it.

It is not productive to criticize the video without first establishing the veracity of the source material offered as evidence for review. Your opinion of Ove38 does not alleviate you from the responsibility of defending the chain of custody for that video. Let us see you produce that chain of custody now. You should have a response ready in your Apollo Defender catalog so you can now produce the chain of custody, yes? We'll wait for it, but not too long.

You can also link to your sources so that we Apollo Reviewers can peer review your sources for political/institutional/bias. When NASA proves NASA it is something like a red flag. I expect you will try to defend your position without resorting to glittering generalities. If Apollo Defenders are unable to attest to the provenance of that video that automatically means Apollo Defenders are operating in a faith-based reality.

Let's all be truthful here and have a productive thread without any malice intended. If the Defenders and Reviewers could work together we might be able to determine the real authenticity of the source for that video.

We should be able to say, after a full examination of the facts, be able to list all the people who touched those boxes, and who was the pilot on the jet, what jet was he flying, the exact times that he carried the Apollo 11 negatives and moon rocks from splashdown in the Pacific Ocean to the LRL in Houston, Texas.

Apollo Defenders really need to step up their game and stop wasting our time. A lot of you will be getting failing grades in 2015 for continuing to ignore Richard Nixon's first term and RN's proper place in the Apollo Mythology. Read John M. Logsdon's "After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program" Source www.palgrave.com... .

So, DJW, have you read the Logsdon book yet?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It was broadcast from the surface of the moon to a dish on Earth, converted from SSTV to a format suitable for terrestrial TV, then relayed to Houston, and the world.

There are no boxes of film, it was a live TV broadcast.

We would like you to actually stfu about Nixon.
edit on 7-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It was broadcast from the surface of the moon to a dish on Earth, converted from SSTV to a format suitable for terrestrial TV, then relayed to Houston, and the world.

There are no boxes of film, it was a live TV broadcast.

We would like you to actually stfu about Nixon.


Once again you have broken your own Golden Rule.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Apollo Defenner says We would like you to actually stfu about Nixon.



Because you want to have control the Apollo narrative. Because you won't allow anyone to question your personal, fictional narrative.
edit on 5/7/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Nixon is going to be in this thread for the next 400 pages. Deal with it.



edit on 5/7/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Apollo Defenner says We would like you to actually stfu about Nixon.



Because you want to have control the Apollo narrative. Because you won't allow anyone to question your personal, fictional narrative.


no because one man cant fake Apollo. let alone a goofball who has trouble ordering a simple break-in when he supposedly has the worlds best resources in his hands.. or maybe they all quit after Apollo..



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

It's pretty clear that you haven't read the new definitive 2015 narrative written by John M. Logsdon where he spends 350+ pages blaming RN and the RN administration for NASA's 40+ years in low earth orbit legacy, which he directly attributes to the cancelling of Apollo, and it was RN's space doctrine decision to cancel Apollo, Saturn V and nix any dreams of going to Mars in the 1980's.

Why won't you accept Richard Nixon's proper place in the Apollo narratives?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join