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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


The fact that you don't want to consider anything conflicting with your personal consideration of things and dismiss them automatically with claims of fallacies/hoax/forgeries is surely a way to avoid a debate ...


It is the revisionists who are the ones calling fallacy/hoax/forgery, remember?


There is nothing to debate here, eat this, believe that, take it for granted ...


No, do some research. Stop arguing from ignorance. Find out how much radiation exposure is safe. Calculate how much thrust the S-IVb state could develop. Debating out of ignorance is just foolishness.


May I remind you that the US president who decided to send these people up there (something I don't even want to deny myself), was killed by a 'magic-bullet' ?


Completely irrelevant. It had more to do with Cuba and organized crime than the Space Race.


Deny the obvious is one thing, pointing out inconstancies is another.


If someone dos not understand what they are seeing or reading, they may not be in a position to determine whether or not something is consistent; that is why I urge people to do research instead of getting their information in pre-digested form from YouTube.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

It is the revisionists who are the ones calling fallacy/hoax/forgery, remember?


So you are revisionist ?


originally posted by: DJW001
No, do some research. Stop arguing from ignorance. Find out how much radiation exposure is safe. Calculate how much thrust the S-IVb state could develop. Debating out of ignorance is just foolishness.


What did I argue ? I just dared to say something you do not agree with and your reaction was ...


originally posted by: DJW001
Completely irrelevant. It had more to do with Cuba and organized crime than the Space Race.


It's just that the official version - the same very official sources all your 'proofs' are likely to be sourced from - acknowledges the lethality of magic bullets ...


originally posted by: DJW001
If someone dos not understand what they are seeing or reading, they may not be in a position to determine whether or not something is consistent; that is why I urge people to do research instead of getting their information in pre-digested form from YouTube.


Then you should be delighted about the Russian proposal to close the debate once for good. BTW, isn't that possible to conduct a similar observation with ground-based telescopes ?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

The American man in space program seemed inevitable once the Second World War made the promise of rocketry and nuclear energy obvious. For cultural reasons, the Russians were generally more eager to develop spaceflight, and beat the United States into orbit. This inspired Eisenhower to accelerate America's program. JFK''s advisers admitted that the US was behind the USSR, but that they could make enough progress rapidly enough to get to the Moon in ten years. By setting that goal, the space program crystallized around a series of concrete tasks to be mastered, giving it a time line and management structure that the Soviet effort lacked. While the American space program unified competing aerospace corporations into an harmonious team, the Soviets were fractured by political a bureaucratic in-fighting.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Deny everything, but to an extent.

I will ask again, because I really don't see the point in why would you stage/fake multiple Moon trips?

The question is not directed directly at you, but to all of you who consider the moon landing to be fake.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

I don't even consider they may have been faked you know ... It's interesting to tickle DJW001 with anything opposing his views to see how consistent his banner is.
"... I'll fight to death for your right to say it ... in the hoax section"




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


So you are revisionist ?


Does calling for a dedicated forum to encourage debate rather than move automatically moving threads by certain members into [HOAX!] make me a revisionist? I'm trying to get a debate started.



What did I argue ? I just dared to say something you do not agree with and your reaction was ...


No, you were attempting to put words in my mouth. You tried to make it sound as though I don't want people to ask questions, just accept what they are told. I have spent a lot of time explaining very basic things to people who do not understand what they are looking at. I don't mind that if they pay attention and learn something, but that is not a debate. If they do not pay attention, refuse to learn, and continue to embrace ignorance, that is still not a debate.


It's just that the official version - the same very official sources all your 'proofs' are likely to be sourced from - acknowledges the lethality of magic bullets ...


Since when has NASA been run by the Warren Commission?


Then you should be delighted about the Russian proposal to close the debate once for good.


I am delighted that the Russians will add more evidence to the historical record. Of course, if the satellite fails, some people will blame American sabotage. If it spots the equipment, the same people will claim that the Americans "got to them." (Not that there is such a thing as Anti-Americanism.) Either way, there is still no debate.


BTW, isn't that possible to conduct a similar observation with ground-based telescopes ?


Not with current technology. There will be some Extremely Large Telescopes equipped with adaptive optics coming in the next few decades. Maybe they will have a shot.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Noble cause, fighting with a government lover, good luck with trying to change him


Jokes aside, i think him and you are going off topic and should go back to actual discussing the moon landing and not to turn it into another america-russia rivalvry.

Give us evidence by both sides. I always found this theory extremely intriguing.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Nikola014

I don't even consider they may have been faked you know ... It's interesting to tickle DJW001 with anything opposing his views to see how consistent his banner is.
"... I'll fight to death for your right to say it ... in the hoax section"




Have I ever suggested moving any of your love notes to Putin into [HOAX!]? No, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how odious I find it. Did I suggest moving threads about the Crimean Invasion to [HOAX!]? No, because even though they were chock full of propaganda and falsehoods they were presenting the Russian position accurately. The only time I ever suggest that something be moved to [HOAX!] is when an OP is based on a deliberate and knowing lie. This will be my last comment on this off topic subject.

Do you have any opinions about my definition of historical methodology?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Does calling for a dedicated forum to encourage debate rather than move automatically moving threads by certain members into [HOAX!] make me a revisionist? I'm trying to get a debate started.


Ah ... so there is a debate.


originally posted by: DJW001No, you were attempting to put words in my mouth. You tried to make it sound as though I don't want people to ask questions, just accept what they are told. I have spent a lot of time explaining very basic things to people who do not understand what they are looking at. I don't mind that if they pay attention and learn something, but that is not a debate. If they do not pay attention, refuse to learn, and continue to embrace ignorance, that is still not a debate.


In response to :
What did I argue ? I just dared to say something you do not agree with and your reaction was ...

You didn't tell what I argued ... I supposed you won't tell us either what for words I supposedly try to put in your mouth.
There was a debate 5 lines ago ... now it's gone again apparently.
I thnk I got it : you don't want to debate, you want to impose your views.


originally posted by: DJW001
Since when has NASA been run by the Warren Commission?


Beware, it's a debate :
The JFK Assassination----NASA and USAEC Roles-----50 Years is long Enough


originally posted by: DJW001
I am delighted that the Russians will add more evidence to the historical record. Of course, if the satellite fails, some people will blame American sabotage. If it spots the equipment, the same people will claim that the Americans "got to them." (Not that there is such a thing as Anti-Americanism.) Either way, there is still no debate.

Not with current technology. There will be some Extremely Large Telescopes equipped with adaptive optics coming in the next few decades. Maybe they will have a shot.


Hubble ? (They may have better things to look at, obviously).
Anyway, so you consider there is no debate and whatever proof might be brought there will always be someone to contradict them ... so there will always be a debate ... I guess this will still be debated for a long time ... Maybe the Chinese and their space program should be able to confirm this in the future.


edit on 2-2-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Do you have an opinion about my definition of the historical method? Do you have an opinion about the sorts of things that would constitute valid evidence? Can you justify the use of the word debate if one party has no evidence, only opinion?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Do you have an opinion about my definition of the historical method?


You would have to repeat it here if it had any relevance because I skipped it I admit.


originally posted by: DJW001
Do you have an opinion about the sorts of things that would constitute valid evidence?


Something that is not the subject of a 50-years debate.


originally posted by: DJW001
Can you justify the use of the word debate if one party has no evidence, only opinion?


There is only a lack of evidence if you deconstruct these evidences, if you dismiss them, you are dodging the debate. It's always the same arguments that are coming over and over again but still some people are willing to consider certain arguments over others to make their own mind. There is no worse blind man than the one who don't want to see.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


There is only a lack of evidence if you deconstruct these evidences, if you dismiss them, you are dodging the debate. It's always the same arguments that are coming over and over again but still some people are willing to consider certain arguments over others to make their own mind. There is no worse blind man than the one who don't want to see.


Although rhetorical questions are used in debates, if the questions can be answered they cease being rhetorical and the debate is resolved. If the question is answered but the party raising it refuses to accept the answer, continuing becomes a waste of time. Note that many of the questions raised have a definite, objective answer.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Didn't read your thread.. as the title
mislead me...
I might have read it if you had given us a title
that reflected the content of the Thread!




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rigel4

It does reflect the content of the thread: what would constitute proof that the Moon landings were faked. It's not my fault that so many others have used that construction to imply that they already had proof. (They never do, do thy?)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.

Click bait and ignorance of the rules of debate.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.


Thanks for this wonderfull sentence. Who invented it ?

Legal burden of proof



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.

Click bait and ignorance of the rules of debate.


Ample evidence has been provided to support the historical claim. The burden of proof then shifts to those who reject all the evidence. Otherwise, the contras can just keep saying " no you didn't."



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.


Thanks for this wonderfull sentence. Who invented it ?

Legal burden of proof



In a court of law, the mountains of evidence in favor of the Moon landings having happened would win the case for the defense easily. The prosecution cannot even find a single witness.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Maverick7
The proof is in the court of those making claims of an accomplishment, NOT those questioning it.


Thanks for this wonderfull sentence. Who invented it ?

Legal burden of proof



In a court of law, the mountains of evidence in favor of the Moon landings having happened would win the case for the defense easily. The prosecution cannot even find a single witness.


Not a change...it started with the people who spread the moonlandings as real not the people who question it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join