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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree with you up to a certain point. Sometimes I use acronyms like "NFC" but I don't call out "Nancy Frank Charlie".
I appreciate your personal anecdote. Here is my personal anecdote from 25 years experience in telecom.

If I don't use phonetics I often have to repeat myself over and over again. I use Whiskey Sams all day long, rather than "Double U Ess". Charlie Sierras all day long because on ground-ground communications "CS" sometimes sounds like "CF".

I use Delta Echos all day long. (because DE sounds like BE).

My original point was that a dirty, noisy communication channel, in a mission critical situation, when there is a communication error, SCE, SCE, FCE?, NCE? SCE! SCE! it is appropriate to switch to phonetics.

Experienced military jet fighter pilots know. And the transcript shows the proof of my point. They switched to phonetics *after* the SCE button was pushed.




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


Now tell me all those experiments are fake.


Because remote controlled lunar landers can deploy laser reflectors. The Russians proved that much. The Russians have never proved that a human being can survive over 475km in space altitude.


edit on 4/25/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you listen to other launches, military test flights, and communications with the ISS, you almost never hear phonetics used.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
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..


You can't be serious, right?

The Dutch museum stated they originally got the 'moon rock' from the ex-PM's estate.

The Dutch museum said the ex-PM received the 'moon rock' from the US Ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr. Drees.

You suggest this account first came from Dress' children, and they told it to the Dutch museum, as the same account given to the public.. as we've read it.

That account was even confirmed as valid, later on, by Dress himself.

No confusion.

So, what's your next excuse?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You can't be serious, right?

The Dutch museum stated they originally got the 'moon rock' from the ex-PM's estate.


the dutch museum got mr drees rock from mr drees children.. mr drees children found the rock and the placard in a draw after mr drees passed.. so no problem there.. dont know why you are repeating so i guess i should also..


The Dutch museum said the ex-PM received the 'moon rock' from the US Ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr. Drees.

You suggest this account first came from Dress' children, and they told it to the Dutch museum, as the same account given to the public.. as we've read it.

That account was even confirmed as valid, later on, by Dress himself.

No confusion.

So, what's your next excuse?


you sound so sure of your story..
yet how can you story be valid when the fake rock was given to the museum after mr drees death??

and also.. no moon rocks was ever given away during the goodwill tour.. not by nasa not by the US gov.. and the US gov nor NASA is obliged to give an EX-PM anything..
edit on 25-4-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: MystikMushroom

They'll just say the retroreflectors were put up there by unmanned rovers. They won't be able to site any evidence of the design, development or launch of these missions or provide any proof (even a sketch on a napkin somwhere that these missions ever existed) whatsoever, but trust them, that's how it happened.


Yep, that is exactly what we will do. Have you checked your Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon books from the library yet? Because you are going to need them in this thread

edit on 4/25/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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?


its not suspicious..

"mark one charlie" is a checkpoint during liftoff.. an abort mode.. thats what it was called..

SCE is the name of the equipment.. likewise LOS was the name given to the term as well as AOS and in the same manner as VHF..



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhisper


That will get difficult as the US claimed a no fly zone over Apollo sites.


We did a whole thread on the Apollo No-fly Zones
"MOON: First Keep Out Zones now National Parks for Apollo Sites?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, I am curious as to what you think about the missing telemetry data. Personally, I think it was made unavailable due to national security and claimed to be lost. I don't personally believe it was lost, that to me seems unimaginable but I can see the need to keep it hidden in the interest of national security.

What are your thoughts?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
My take as a casual observer of this thread: If the best points you've got are a few works spoken during a radio transmission and a displayed rock that wasn't really from the moon it seems a safe assumption that you're probably on the losing side of the debate.

All the major big picture points have been soundly debunked so the "reviewers" are reduced to scratching the bottom of the barrel for minute details that can be construed to be irregularities.

Here's a broader question. In 1969 there were 34,000 some NASA in-house employees and 180,000 contract employees working for NASA.

How SPECIFICALLy could just a few hundred have fooled the rest of the over 200.00 experts who were no doubt extremely engaged in following the project?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   


a reply to: Misinformation


in hindsight, it is blatantly obvious the attacks upon William Shatners acting abilities was an attempt by the propagandists too discredit his knowledge of the moon hoax....


William Shatner admits that he witnessed a projection screen and models used on the Apollo moon mission




posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It is always pointed out by the Apollo-ites...

'The official Apollo story is considered 100% genuine, by every scientist, expert, in more than 40 years since the event(s)!'

This event has never been verified by any of those scientists, or experts... nor is it really possible for any of these scientists, and experts, to verify it.

Yet, they are all in agreement with the official account, in 100% unison.


Apollo-ites think it means all scientists and experts believe the story is true, since nobody has ever raised any doubts, or disputed any of it.

Universal agreement, that's a good one!!


In their most recently published documents, these experts either barely mention Apollo, as a footnote, or they just ignore it, completely.

They have to say Apollo is genuine, and their own documents show what they really think about Apollo.

Indeed, it shows a universal agreement on Apollo, after all.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No-one from the US goodwill tour ever claimed it was a moon rock.

No-one.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And they were so reliable they lost one. The Soviet reflectors were mounted on top of their probes, the Apollo ones were not and needed setting up.

It isn't just the fact that there are retro-reflectors there, it's the fact that there are retro-reflectors exactly in he locations that the Apollo missions put them, which can be verified by anyone who cares to fire a laser at them. We have video and photos of those devices being installed, and in those videos we have rocks and craters that are not visible (thanks to low resolution imagery) in pre-Apollo photographs. Those rocks and craters are visible in photographs taken by post-Apollo probes.

The same photos, video and TV show pictures of Earth that are time and date specific, and we have samples of rocks from those same locations that are verified as lunar in origin by people who are qualified to make that judgement.

By taking a tiny fragment of the evidence and ignoring the rest of it you are dishonestly making an irrelevant point. No-one denies you can land a probe on the moon, but when you actually look at all the evidence it is obvious that people put the Apollo ones there.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation


a reply to: Misinformation


in hindsight, it is blatantly obvious the attacks upon William Shatners acting abilities was an attempt by the propagandists too discredit his knowledge of the moon hoax....


William Shatner admits that he witnessed a projection screen and models used on the Apollo moon mission


That's a ridiculous video. In the interests of keeping other people from wasting time I'll hit the major points. He does his "alternative research" by watching science fiction movies. Gene Roddenberry was a 33rd degree Mason. All the Vulcan are portrayed by Jewish actors. Von Braun and the Nazis had advanced secret technology portrayed in the Star Trek movies only we didn't get to the moon and the video maker doesn't need to go into that because it's so obvious. And the big payoff is Shatner saying that NASA engineers pulled a prank by buying an enterprise model at a store and projecting the image on a screen he could seen from inside a LEM simulator.
edit on 25-4-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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?

According an email from the ALSJ chief editor most questions to NASA about Apollo are forwarded to the ALSJ. NASA only get involved in special cases. Do you think it is smart of NASA to leave their historical archive in the hands of some enthusiasts as you call them?

Have you read the "the real story about as11-40-5863/69" story. The Sun in that image is a photoshopped effect according the creator of the compilation image. The ALSJ chief editor was informed about it by AwE130 directly. He was well aware of it as all information was forwarded to him. Why change the caption and "forget" to explain the photoshopped sun effect?

Why is everyone called a liar here for disagreeing with the Apollo moon landings? It looks like a coordinated attempt to avoid the real open and honest debate. Could it be the more and more people are emailing NASA with questions about the Apollo moon landings? who knows but it would not surprise TW at all, as the whisper is getting louder.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you listen to other launches, military test flights, and communications with the ISS, you almost never hear phonetics used.


Indeed.

In most of the Apollo transmissions (the ones heard live in the press room at Houston by journalists), the only time you tend to hear phonetics is when discussing the film magazines, as they needed to get the right film types for the job they were doing.

Conspiracy lovers in general are immensely fond of taking a tiny fragment of something, deciding that it doesn't match their expectations on it based on absolutely no knowledge whatsoever and then making it into something they think is of significance. This is another typical meaningless and irrelevant example. All SJ is doing is proving that 3 astronaut were in a Saturn V that was hit by lightning during launch.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They have to say Apollo is genuine,


The Russians have to say Apollo is genuine? The Chinese have to say it? The Indians have to say it? The Japanese have to say it?

Why? Who could possibly be enforcing that?

Once again, this gigantic story with huge amounts of data as well as physical evidence was made up a half century ago and no engineer or scientist anywhere in the world has reported any disqualifying discrepancies in all that time?



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
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.




"90% are not interested in the actual truth".
What study are you going to show for your claim. If you are not able to produce any link to a respected website with real research that supports your 90% it would be a far question to ask you to retract your statement.
edit on 25-4-2015 by TheWhisper because: ask you to



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper
According an email from the ALSJ chief editor most questions to NASA about Apollo are forwarded to the ALSJ. NASA only get involved in special cases. Do you think it is smart of NASA to leave their historical archive in the hands of some enthusiasts as you call them?


NASA no longer has an unlimited budget.. you are asking them to pay many people a salary to catalogue everything when enthusiasts can collect and compile it all for free..


Have you read the "the real story about as11-40-5863/69" story. The Sun in that image is a photoshopped effect according the creator of the compilation image. The ALSJ chief editor was informed about it by AwE130 directly. He was well aware of it as all information was forwarded to him. Why change the caption and "forget" to explain the photoshopped sun effect?


it sounds like you are sour that they deleted your name..

the bottom line is that it is in the right section now..


Why is everyone called a liar here for disagreeing with the Apollo moon landings? It looks like a coordinated attempt to avoid the real open and honest debate. Could it be the more and more people are emailing NASA with questions about the Apollo moon landings? who knows but it would not surprise TW at all, as the whisper is getting louder.


i call liars liars.. i dont call every one who disagrees with the reality of the moon landing a liar, i only call the ones making false claims liars..

i cant help it if the ones presenting false information as the truth are all hoax believers.. coincidence?? i think not..




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join