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.

 

The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF.

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

DJW I can't believe you still have problems understanding the concept of historical revisionism. Here, let the President of the American Historical Association explain it to you in layman's terms:


History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. source www.historians.org...


Here is the perfect example of your misunderstanding :


One fallacy that Moon Hoax proponents make is that "if a single detail is wrong or contradictory, the entire narrative must be false." This is a fallacy because documentation is subject to human error. Numbers get miscounted, locations get misidentified.


Mis-labeling your opponents and constructing a straw man out of thin air by trying to shoehorn all of your potential rivals into a one-size-fits-all is totally unacceptable. Then you say that "documentation is subject to human error"; however, when it comes to Apollo documentation, don't you usually insist that NASA is to be accepted as a source of immutable truth?


They (Moon Hoax proponents) need to provide an equal volume of: list of 12 crazy things you want


What? That's not how historical revisionism works at all. As an Apollo Reviewer I have no obligation whatsoever to meet your demands for an "equal volume" of what tends to amount to self-incriminating conspiracy paperwork. You would be asking for lots of papers from the Nixon era - an era of secrecy, bribery, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.

And while I commend you for taking on the inglorious task of this thread and bringing with you the methodology of critical historical analysis - you should dive even further into the murky depths.

Did you know there is more than one kind of historical method? There are 3 different methods according to Nietzsche: the monumental, the antiquarian and the critical. Ref: records.viu.ca...

I made a post about it here but I don't think anyone noticed :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The critical method is a revisionist method that the first two methods will not actually tolerate for long because it represents a threat - the first two often will try to obliterate the third method. This can be seen in every Apollo thread when anyone makes the sophomore mistake of lumping all "Apollo Hoax proponents" into a single category of opposition.... which is exactly what you have already done.

Furthermore, you have prefaced your argument with the subtle, but powerful, phrase "documentation is subject to human error" and in doing that I can surmise that you would like to retreat to it as a "safe ground" whenever the documentation doesn't go in your favor - for example - when the moon rock inventory was a matter of "extreme disagreements."



Or when, in another example (I know you love this one) when the Apollo telemetry tapes were lost (not re-used, you have no proof of that) during the transfer from the National Archives to Goddard. These examples are the perfect chance for you to bring up the subtle but powerful phrase "documentation is subject to human error".



However, as an Apollo Reviewer (a critical method revisionist), these are only two prime examples why the monumental and antiquarian methods are not sufficient for Apollo, that Apollo deserves the critical treatment, and there is no escaping it... the Apollo narratives have serious problems.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Revisionism is saying we didn't go to the moon and then repeating that lie ad nauseum until the truth that we landed there gets lost in the melee.

This hoax crap is sickening and a tremendous insult to the brilliant men and women who got us there and who went there.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Thouroughly deserved, Guss did good holding his temper as long as he did, as for the bible this guy was abusing it and if Jim Irwin had been there I think even he too would probably have hit that jerk, he was harrassing and insulting Guss and not only that he was intimidating an elderly gentleman, as for Irwin he definitely went to the moon also and is also notable as he was a devout christian and spent his dying years convinced of the presence and trying to prove the existance of Noah's ark on mount Ararrat in Turkey (a former Armenian Christian region now occupied by ethnic Turks and Kurd's after the majority of the Armenian's were massacred and driven form there ancestral land's) so he was no liar and neither is Guss, though they potentially could have been conditioned and drug's used to implant memory's though I am playing devils advocate there as I believe they did go.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Helious
They faked being half way to the moon and because of this I find the video and photographic evidence of such an event to be dubious at best.

I also under no circumstance can be led to believe that at that point and time in history would the United States have been willing to risk complete and utter failure with the entire world watching.


Okay, prove it. I've made it clear what would constitute PROOF.


DJ, you can claim whatever you want as proof and have it meet the criteria or not but bruh, they faked being half way to the moon. It's not debatable nor is it defensible and if you really want to have the discussion.... We can. The fact is, they faked being half way to the moon.



By the way, if that's not enough, we also have Edger Mitchell's kids saying on video to Bart that if people wan't to have a little fun on the way to the Moon it's no big deal. Followed by threats of having him "wacked" by the CIA.

Refuse to believe it all you wan't, offer weak explanations, it doesn't matter and I haven't even touched on Buzz yet, I will link you a treasure trove of nonsense.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Delete.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Curious69

There are rock's in the deep pacific which were dredged up and found to be very similar in composition to the moon rock's brought back by the apollo expedition's although some of the mineral composition of the lunar samples is actually unique, some is also found on earth from ejecta after lunar impact's which has in the past fallen to eath.

Here is a rare mineral found in australia which was thought only to exist on the moon though,
www.sciencemag.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
You forgot one :
The binding factor preventing the 10s of thousands of folks that would have known from speaking up . And how it would be enforced for all these years.
Peace

In all fairness when so many contractors are working so many different parts of the program how can any of them really ever get an overall view of the entire program, the truth is only a relatively small few hundred people at most could have know the exact facts so that argument is a little weak.

You remember the film independance day were they infamous quote (probably made up for the movie but still) $20 for a hammer and $30 for a toillette seat is said, well this kind of thing did happen but were then was all that money going, it is my contention that the later Apollo missions (which should have been cheaper as the development was mostly complete) were deliberately over priced and the money siphoned off by the alphabet boy's to there favourite vietnam era project's in order to rob the US taxpayer and work outside or the US senate oversight control.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

Bro, where's your PROOF?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So you have nothing that meets objective criteria of proof. Not surprised.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Helious

Bro, where's your PROOF?


Bruh, watch the video, anybody who has graduated the 2nd grade will agree they faked being "half way to the Moon". Come on man, I like you but don't defend this. It's disingenuous.

You have to rely on some silly nonsense "you" call proof even though your argument has been debunked?
edit on 1-2-2016 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

I just posted a list of things that would count as evidence. Your video does not meet any of the criteria. Please wake up and pay attention.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You can post whatever you want. It doesn't matter. Post something that explains them faking being half way to the moon. I know, you know, you can't.

Say anything else you want, it doesn't matter, it's a lie, the evidence proves it and if you wan't to continue to propagate it then you are living in a lie.

If that's what you believe DJ, cool but that's not what the factual video history of this event has shown us. You ask about my evidence? Roflmao, the video I linked. I think to see it any way else you would have to either be slightly retarded, in complete denial or a staunch I don't give a f$ crowd because I love NASA and science crowd.

It didn't happen the way they said, the evidence is not only clear, it's smacking you in the face. Get over it.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

I will denounce the fraud from the mountain tops. All you have to do is provide one single shred of evidence, as defined in the OP. Put up or shut up.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Helious

I will denounce the fraud from the mountain tops. All you have to do is provide one single shred of evidence, as defined in the OP. Put up or shut up.


DJ, I can provide so much I could clear my schedule for the next three days, honestly. The thing is, I already did. The video I provided is a CLEAR depiction of faking being half way to the moon.

Please stop ignoring this. I see the mission clock, I see the Apollo 11 Astronauts, I see them claiming they are half way to the Moon. Oooooops, I see them lying.

Stop White Knighting this nonsense. They obviously lied, make a defense of why and not if because the evidence says they did. Ignoring or Failing to recognize obvious facts isn't doing your argument any favors.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious


DJ, I can provide so much I could clear my schedule for the next three days, honestly.


Excellent! Your credibility is riding on this. I expect you to spend the next three days posting evidence that meet all the criteria I set forth in the OP. If you do not, I assume you will do the honorable thing and retire from ATS.


The thing is, I already did. The video I provided is a CLEAR depiction of faking being half way to the moon.
.

Pathetic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yes thats kind of my point, besides those who would want to fool somebody to belive the moonlandings could also make up the composition of moon rock, im not saying its definatly the case, im pretty much on the fence with everything that did not experience first hand and even then i cant be sure because i may lack the knowledge to confirm it.
i belive in the moonlanding one day and the next im not so sure it depends on wich side makes the argument.
some things seems impossible to fake and somethings seems so sloppy that i get doubtful.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001
It's total clickbait bro you know it, thats why you used it and of course it worked. try it on you tube and your likes bar would look like a oh what was the old school term we used " a light saber"



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   






A research team has confirmed organic matter found in lunar samples collected during the Apollo missions. The lunar samples collected in the late 60s and early 70s have long been known contain amino acids (the building blocks of life), but the lunar surface is completely inhospitable for known forms of life









Operation Ivy Bells - Soviet undersea communications cable

The tapping of the Soviet naval cable was so secret that most sailors involved did not have the security clearance needed to know about it & a cover story was thus created. The operation became compromised & instead of Soviets "saying something" , it was used to feed disinformation.

edit on 2-2-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Curious69


Yes thats kind of my point, besides those who would want to fool somebody to belive the moonlandings could also make up the composition of moon rock,


How would they know what Moon rock was made of? Remember, the Soviets brought back their own soil samples. The US and USSR exchanged samples and the results matched.



Moon dust.



Lunar samples being exchanged.

There is documentary evidence that the US and USSR confirmed each other's claims. Where is the evidence that either one faked it?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Please explain why samples being contaminated is evidence of anything other than sloppy handling?




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join