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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheWhisper

Oh yeah. That whole 250 foot keep out area. That'll keep them from seeing anything. If they even abide by it.


Apollo never landed a man on the moon so The Whisper agrees with you that there is nothing to see. LOL




posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   


the 20th century saw advances in propaganda that were never imagined before


the propagandists have been at it a long time...


edit on 24-4-2015 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd
a reply to: TheWhisper

Why? You guys haven't addressed many questions in this thread. All I have seen is childish replies when it doesn't fit your conspiracy thats been debunked numerous times on ATS already. How about you address ScientificRailgun's statement on page 2 of this thread.


Childish you say, lets see how childish the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) is. May we show you a link to the NASA website and we asked you to read 1 November 2012.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Well nothing seems wrong does it?

May we show you the cached version of that link 3 June 2013 read again the 1 November 2012.
web.archive.org...://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html

Now you see that credits in the Apollo archive on the NASA just get deleted. Maybe you will defend this action but The Whisper can tell you that is historical fraud (in our opinion) as the date is not changed they just deleted it. If you are interested in the email written by the ALSJ chief editor to AwE130, in which he confirms the proper credits you have to go here.
planet.infowars.com...

Now you know what is gone happen this pro Apollo group will jump on this post and will start complaining to get the Whisper banned for posting this. They only like to use TAC to silence other people. Don't speak me from childish behavior, look at the ALSJ chief editor and ask yourself if he is already childish what will all this dudes under him be?
edit on 24-4-2015 by TheWhisper because: (in our opinion



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Anyway if anyone likes a open and honest audio debate The Whisper is always ready to have a civilized debate with anyone who willing to debate the Apollo moon landing hoax.
edit on 24-4-2015 by TheWhisper because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper

Mr. whisper, I appreciate your contributions. I've starred your posts but let's do have a civil debate and refrain from name-calling. Keep your info coming and don't take this as an insult. Far from it!



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

Mr. whisper, I appreciate your contributions. I've starred your posts but let's do have a civil debate and refrain from name-calling. Keep your info coming and don't take this as an insult. Far from it!

The Whisper is understanding what you say and you are wright. So your point is taken on board.

The problem is that a small group of Apollo believer hate the AwE130 website and its owner. If you are interested I will mail it to you personal you will be shocked what is going on.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: TheWhisper

Mr. whisper, I appreciate your contributions. I've starred your posts but let's do have a civil debate and refrain from name-calling. Keep your info coming and don't take this as an insult. Far from it!


Just one question what post you refer to were the Whisper was not not civilized debating? The Whisper is normally never playing the man always the ball.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
On the Dutch 'moon rock' issue -

We already know the object didn't say 'moon rock' on the plaque...

But nothing else makes any sense, we know that.

It was meant to deceive, and it finally got caught.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: choos

Why does NASA has to lie about 207 images they never ever uploaded to the NASA website? Some people say NASA lost the 207 Apollo 14 magazine 80 images others say they are classified today. We have the images from official NASA documentation.


the ALSJ site, which im assuming you are referring to is not NASA made, its compiled by enthusiasts..

if you want to prove that NASA is lying about those images then you should be proving that those images are fabricated, and not that they are not on the site..

the difference here is that the images you are refering to being lost and Jarrah making up lies.. is that the ALSJ site is a site that has been compiled by enthusiasts, they are gathering information that is available..

whereas Jarrah, your messenger, is fabricating false information for his followers who are too inept to to realise basic mathematical errors.. it is his own work..

p.s. its clear you can refer to yourself in first person.. any chance you could stop referring to yourself in third person?
edit on 24-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

you still on the dutch rock?? even SJ calls it a weak.. no rocks were given out during the goodwill tour, so whatever was given to Mr. Drees was not given by NASA, nor the US gov.. he was an ex PM, there is no obligation to give anything to him..

the real moon rock was given to the queen and then passed to another museum where it stayed.. the drees rock is due to confusion from drees' children..



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

Good video.

I'd imagine hoax believers will generally ignore and dismiss it though, as per usual.

Always remember, when dealing with moon hoax people, especially on here, 90% are not interested in the actual truth and therefore not interested in anything that challenges their paradigm.

I like the statement the guy makes at the end:

"Once you're forced to hypothesize
whole new technologies to keep
your conspiracy possible,
you've stepped over
into the realm of magic.
It demands a deep and abiding
faith in things you can never know"

Word.




edit on 24-4-2015 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

The Apollo program was an international effort, and a public spectacle, the N1 program was not. Cold war Russia was a very very different place to 60's America. Need I go on? White's argument is fallacious.

This type of rhetoric, that White uses in your quoted text, is employed by 'conspiracy' charlatans all the time, start off with a statement that is not necessarily factual and build upon it. You will also see this tactic used by 'chemtrail' proponents all the time. Alex Jones too. They know full well that most of the people who are spending their time reading their musings are not the type of people to go and check the 'facts' the authors so casually throw about, they are not there to question, they are their to affirm their beliefs.






edit on 24-4-2015 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DelMarvel

You sound as if you've run an operation of this magnitude before. Who are you, man? Are you the reincarnate of Tricky Dick Nixon??


And you're qualified to make that comment because you've run an "operation" like this before? Play the ball, not the man as the poster said.

All you have to do is honestly and rationally look at the big picture to see how many people all over the earth it would have taken to stage this alleged hoax and keep it secret for a half century.

And, by the way, this obsession with Nixon is a little ridiculous. Apollo 11 was less than 6 months after he took office. Any conspiracy would have to have been in the works long before that.

If you're saying it was Nixon's idea, and it was only a few hundred people then they only had 180 days to fake all the images and data and moon rocks and everything else that has fooled the entire global scientific establishment for 46 years. Except, of course, for a handful of amateurs.

edit on 24-4-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Any way, let's keep it civil, have fun and share knowledge and ideas! Thanks, guys and gals!
Thank you, Bravo Papa!



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Helious


Not everyone who has doubts about the moon landings think that we never went to the moon. Some think only that what was presented to us was not a true and accurate account.


That is a very good statement and speaking for myself only, as an Apollo Reviewer, I agree with it 100%. It is about time that somebody, like you, made that statement. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They only saw about 3Gs during launch. You have to remember that these were pilots trained to deal with G forces. They saw much more than 3Gs during training, and knew exactly how to tighten their body to deal with them.


Do you have a source on the 3Gs experienced during an Apollo launch? This is an Apollo thread, not a space shuttle thread.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And yet you have no problem with the post that was in response to which was about the shuttle on launch.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bobbypurify

No. I used to run an official radio network when I was younger (FCC certified operators, up to 30 stations). We rarely used the phonetic alphabet. Even when we were dealing with airborne aircraft, we rarely did unless it was something very specific and they were having trouble understanding.


With respect to your personal anecdote, let me offer my own personal anecdote ( I know they aren't worth much on the internet, but whatever)

I can assure you that phonetics are used in military air-to-ground communications during critical mission scenarios. With respect to your caveat "unless it was something very specific" when the ground control is requesting that a certain button "SCE" is pushed, that is a VERY specific request and when the air mission is unable to decipher that instruction, in my personal experience, a professional ground controller would automatically switch to phonetics and not repeat "Ess See Eee" over a dirty communication channel. The appropriate reaction is to switch to phonetics "Sam Charlie Echo to AUX".

Do you agree if someone says "Ess See Eee" on a dirty communication channel it will be difficult for the receiver to know if that was "Eff Fee Eee"? Especially during the launch phases of Apollo when the Saturn F-1's were thundering, blanketing the voice channels with a whole lot of noise.

Again, as a personal anecdote, I use phonetics everyday because it is easier than repeating myself 3 times... SCE to AUX... SCE to AUX.... SCE to AUX....



It is very suspicious that after SCE to AUX confusion was solved, the ground control switched to use phonetic alphabet "Mark one Charlie" and so does Conrad also switch to phonetics "One Charlie".

That means they know phonetics and they know when to use phonetics. Who can say what "One Charlie" means?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I've been involved with military, radio network, and ground to air SAR coordination on the radio. For almost all of it, we used normal speech. The phonetic alphabet was used for certain designations, but that was just about it. That was over many years too.

I spent 28 years on a military flight line, using radios to order parts from supply, talking to ground control, and aircraft. We used the phonetic alphabet to designate parking spots and taxiways. Even when calling for parts over the radio, where it cod easily sound like something else (CSD for one), we just said the part name.
edit on 4/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster


Please respond to this. without ad-hominem please.


Nope, You are using argumentum ad youtubem. You need to come to this thread with your own ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join