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.

 

I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

The "James" has more differences than need mentioning. But your mind is made up. I suppose it could be his signature but I won't blindly believe some guy who has an entire website used to debunk hoax theory. Just because his website follows a mantra accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean he isn't using forged tactics. I thought this place was about denying ignorance. Seems more or less a place to find people who agree with your worldview and cheerlead them on.




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Not only that but they appear to be pullng some sort of object off of the window which is clearly seen. The whole thing looks fishy but the damage control that NASA applies to their Apollo forgery is second to none. People free of bias and cognitive dissonance can see that Apollo may have been a production. Others, well, get ready to be insulted for daring to question mankind's greatest acheivment that nobody has ever come close to recreating even with exponential technological advantages. It's as if the Apollo record never happened because the data is basically ignored when deep space travel is concerned.


That video was made by the guy who got thumped by Aldrin, when he was yelling into Aldrin's face like a madman. The woman doing the commentary is an actor..and that's pretty obvious, in fact over acting.
The Moonshot she claims is only a portion of the Earth is the whole Earth, as well as is a 35mm still of the same view, and like she agrees, had to be taken on the same day and time in space. The Earth shot is totally consistent with the full Earth, as is the weathering seen in the picture for that day with the NOOA satellite BW much lower orbit picture for that day and time when they are matched up and resized. So that piece of the documentary far from proving fakery, does exactly the opposite and proves that the Apollo was far distant from the Earth. Apart from that, it proves that the film maker is a stupid gobshiite.
edit on 18-5-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: bobbypurify

The other thing what were they flying in



La Chose bloody ne peut pas voler
edit on 18-5-2015 by khnum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

No, yours is clearly different. You owe Jay Windley an apology, and now you are guilty of attempting to forge Dr. Van Allen's signature.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Nobody has failed to replicate the Apollo missions because nobody has solved traversing the ERBs, you know, to even do any deep space travel.

Yes, they have. Countless probes have, so did Apollo, and none of it was dangerous given Apollo's trajectory. I suggest you review my first post on the first page where I quantitatively detailed the relative amounts of radiation received.


Nothing but sketchy LRO photos of pixels added to the surface that would be laughed at by your side if that was supposed proof of UFOs.

Not at all. The LRO photos are detailed and show clear tracks and signs of human presence. The descent stage reveals its RCS thrust deflectors. It's clearly artificial in nature. You are being intellectually dishonest. If a lander showed you pictures you'd say they were hoaxes just like you just did with LRO. Sketchy? No. Debunks you? Yes.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify


But your mind is made up. I suppose it could be his signature but I won't blindly believe some guy who has an entire website used to debunk hoax theory


Yet confronted with matching signatures from two different documents. You still feel the need to blindly believe YouTube conspiracists and all moon hoaxers?
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: bobbypurify

No, yours is clearly different. You owe Jay Windley an apology, and now you are guilty of attempting to forge Dr. Van Allen's signature.


Bro, I'm not guilty of forgery, I stated that I was trying to reproduce it, not claim it was his.

I don't owe him an apology as his signature is clearly different. Why don't you post "James" from his email then "James" from the website you directed me to, right next to each other?

I'm tired of arguing with your side. You go to any length, even claim that I'm guilty of forgery when that's not the case at all. I'm trying to exemplify, how easy it could be to recreate
edit on 18-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

you bringing up the Orion EFT-1 is the only "non-sequitur" in relationship to what I was talking about, in regards to the low-earth orbital distance of the shuttle and the ISS. so, maybe you should use a little logic before accusing me of not doing so.

someone mentioned that the 6 American flags planted in the surface of the moon would still be noticeable. these 2 sites would seem to contradict that statement...

low resistance to sunlight on nylon
textilelearner.blogspot.com...

and the actual nylon material (common store bought flags)
www.todayifoundout.com...



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Nobody has failed to replicate the Apollo missions because nobody has solved traversing the ERBs, you know, to even do any deep space travel.

Yes, they have. Countless probes have, so did Apollo, and none of it was dangerous given Apollo's trajectory. I suggest you review my first post on the first page where I quantitatively detailed the relative amounts of radiation received.


Nothing but sketchy LRO photos of pixels added to the surface that would be laughed at by your side if that was supposed proof of UFOs.

Not at all. The LRO photos are detailed and show clear tracks and signs of human presence. The descent stage reveals its RCS thrust deflectors. It's clearly artificial in nature. You are being intellectually dishonest. If a lander showed you pictures you'd say they were hoaxes just like you just did with LRO. Sketchy? No. Debunks you? Yes.


Using NASA data sets. Thanks. I'll go get the bible to prove Jesus was the savior.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Actually, I don't blindly believe anything. I'm just skeptical of a guy, Windley, who has an obvious agenda. That's what anyone should do rather than just believe him.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Ocram050

I doubt the honesty of those in governmental employ to ever tell the truth. I do have doubts about the video shown of those moon walk, but I choose to believe they happened. I was in my early years when man first walked on the moon. No one is taking that special memory from me!



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Nobody has failed to replicate the Apollo missions because nobody has solved traversing the ERBs, you know, to even do any deep space travel.

Yes, they have. Countless probes have, so did Apollo, and none of it was dangerous given Apollo's trajectory. I suggest you review my first post on the first page where I quantitatively detailed the relative amounts of radiation received.


Nothing but sketchy LRO photos of pixels added to the surface that would be laughed at by your side if that was supposed proof of UFOs.

Not at all. The LRO photos are detailed and show clear tracks and signs of human presence. The descent stage reveals its RCS thrust deflectors. It's clearly artificial in nature. You are being intellectually dishonest. If a lander showed you pictures you'd say they were hoaxes just like you just did with LRO. Sketchy? No. Debunks you? Yes.


Using NASA data sets. Thanks. I'll go get the bible to prove Jesus was the savior.

Nope. Not using NASA datasets. Read again.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: ngchunter

you bringing up the Orion EFT-1 is the only "non-sequitur" in relationship to what I was talking about, in regards to the low-earth orbital distance of the shuttle and the ISS. so, maybe you should use a little logic before accusing me of not doing so.

You still don't get it. It's the extension of your own logic. Or are you saying the government tells the truth?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: bobbypurify

No, yours is clearly different. You owe Jay Windley an apology, and now you are guilty of attempting to forge Dr. Van Allen's signature.


Bro, I'm not guilty of forgery, I stated that I was trying to reproduce it, not claim it was his.

I have reported your defamation of Jay Windley. His signature is clearly the same. You owe him an immediate retraction and apology.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Those signatures are clearly not the same. "James" is vastly different. I don't owe anyone an apology and thanks for reporting me. More class from your side of the debate - now, with your photo embedding skills - post both versions of the signature next to each other. Because they are not the same and you claiming they are is rather telling.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

Those signatures are clearly not the same.

They clearly are.


"James" is vastly different.

No it's not. Clearly it's the same guy with the same style of J's, etc.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter
now, with your photo embedding skills - post both versions of the signature next to each other


edit on 18-5-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter




This is clearly the same signature:


Yes it is...here is another.



And you can buy it here...

stampauctionnetwork.com...

I guess Google wasn't his friend.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify




Those signatures are clearly not the same. "James" is vastly different.


You do understand that your signature will change over time, as the older you get the more the difference from your younger signatures.

When I sign my name it is vastly different from when I was younger...so your point really doesn't hold water.

And could you please explain the science you used to determine they weren't from the same person...I am genuinely interested.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

I recreated James' signature in one fell swoop. You then claimed I was using this as "forgery" when I was just making an example. Then, you report me for merely questioning the authenticity of the signature.

The "James" is obviously different. Anyone can see that. You're resorting to some profound tactics of disolving our discourse. I'll stop conversing with you from this point forward.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join