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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Well, if we didn't have the technology to send a person to the moon, we also didn't have the technology to start WWIII or prolong the cold war. Or make Nuclear Reactors



When people with nothing but pencils, paper and slide rulers can figure out how the guns in a corsair can create a harmonic to rip off 16 square feet of wing (see John Glenn's memoirs) I think they can figure out how to land a man on a moon and bring them back safely



jra

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
When people with nothing but pencils, paper and slide rulers can figure out how the guns in a corsair can create a harmonic to rip off 16 square feet of wing (see John Glenn's memoirs) I think they can figure out how to land a man on a moon and bring them back safely


Exactly, it's all just math. It seems like some believe that we need computers to do everything for us these days... well there was a time when people didn't have computers to rely on and managed to do some amazing things.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Wake up people, science has become the Religion of Science. Look at some of the incredible BAD things it brings to us... SETI, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, we are ALONE in the Universe, etc, etc.

Please! Are we THINKING people or just orange leather clad parroting hairless monkeys?


...and the rant ends with the answer. Apparently golemina has a problem with the progress of science in a wide range of fields, as it does not support his own beliefs. Thus, by association, the moon landing must also be bogus.

I'll say it again, be careful when picking your fights. If you want to argue some topic that has yet to be decided, go for it. But this is the moon landing--there is such an overwhelming supply of evidence that we went there, the pictures are real, the evidence brought back is real, and that there is no coverup of any sort.

Let's brighten up a bit, eh?


[EDIT]:ttttttypo

[edit on 4-7-2005 by backtoreality]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
No seriously guys... YES! I am totally irreverent, but we ARE just having a little fun here... Right?


I'll try to pick up all the lose ends of this portion of the conversation. I mean after all... attention to detail... is everything. (So, if I miss a specific comment of yours, don't be offended. Give it another shot.)

Hmm... Some might say context is ALSO somewhat important. The context, from my point of view in this part of the thread, is related to the materials contained in the NASA/Apollo 'attack piece'. I believe it was called something like 'Fox Special - Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'. So you guys that refuse to watch it, have not seen it, have seen (but don't recall it or last week
), etc.

Without a common context (the flick) and based on our lack of progress, some of you goofballs still thinking the 'visual record' shows that 'we REALLY went to the moon', it would seem obvious we have a case of apples and orangest (orangutans). Did I mention I was totally irreverent?


'It does a really good job at showing how badly educated some people are'
I have a slightly different viewpoint. To me, 'an education', is only a tool. It is typically only as good as the person owning it. You get my drift?


'I also have examined the claims and havn't found a single one to have any merit at all.'
Really? And OJ wasn't framed either, right?

'Care to explain why that's the wrong answer?'
Absolutely. That comment simply doesn't apply to the 'picture' in question.

'what does this have to do with the Moon landings being fake?'
Didn't I previously say it was subtle? The 'visual record' proporting to show the 'Moon landings' IS fake. If we ever get by the 'true believers' zealous refusal to even look at the anamolies, the facts, the 'hack amateurish' 'work product', we might get to the really fun cool conjecture part of what really happened.


'And look at all the great things it's brought us. You wouldn't be sitting there typing on your computer if it wasn't for science, nor driving a car, hell or even riding a bike. We'd all be living in caves or really primitive huts if it wasn't for science.'
Touche! Many say our current state of technology vis-a-vis computers (and a whole lot of other fields) is due to a gigantic infusion of alien technology that started circa 1950.

I don't exactly recall saying 'science is bad'. Nah, I think the implication is more like I am complaining about 'bad science'. Yeah, that's it!

'How is SETI bad?'
SETI is great... for those guys making a living thru their valiant efforts. The marketing glossies are simply just excellent... To me, the problem is it's based on a horribly flawed and quite laughable premise. Not to mention, that tiny little paradox of seemingly totally ignoring history.

'How is the Big Bang theory bad?'
It's 'bad' because it is TOTALLY laughable. It's a creation myth. Have you read the 'fine print' on this 'theory'? It basically states, that the universe exploded out of nothingness!

The problem with the 'universe exploding out of nothingness' is that it is nonsensical. It basically argues that 0 = 1. It is total speculation.

The real problem comes in when that becomes the conceptual basis for extrapolating/seeking real knowledge.

Dark Matter falls in a similar vein. If you review the genesis of that particular concept, a gross oversimplification of it is that the equations being used in physics calculations were coming up somewhat skewed, by estimating the sum total of all mass visible to us... short of mass... the premise was advanced, the mass MUST be invisible... hence, Dark Matter!

A more open minded guy might say something along the lines... 'Officially' we have never even been to ANOTHER planet, if the math/physics model is that... let's say 'speculative'... A more reasonable premise is the mathematics model is just slightly fla **Cou Missing a minimum of two dimensions. Thanks Newton! gh** wed.

'And apparently watching the movie 'Apollo 13' makes one an expert on the missions.'
Ouch! Wrong 'movie'...


'So, if I took a photo here on earth with the same malfunctions, you are telling me that this is proof that I am not on earth? Makes no sense.'
10th attempt at an answer... OK.


'I hope the next person who shoves a camera in Aldrins face gets much more than a broken nose...

... cus you've got a lot of catching up to do.'

'tyrants of truth'?
The bad news... that's kinda harsh...
The good news... You DO look good in leather!


BTW. OJ was framed. Attention to detail is everything.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I grew up like everyone else, believing without question that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut who went to the moon on one of the "Apollos" (13?). Anyway, I was probably only about 7 or 8 years old when I watched it on TV. It was all very exciting to everyone. My parents, my teachers, the other kids at school.

All of a sudden, the boys all wanted to grow up to be astronauts, then some of the girls did, too. Then the years passed by, interests change, and I basically forgot about the whole thing - until somebody, fairly recently somehow managed to get the word out that it was all a hoax.

Me, just beginning to really get into "Conspiracy Theories", etc... fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Well, after having a few months to toy with the idea, I decided that it is no more proven one way or the other than it ever was. I mean, I've been to Universal Studios, I know how just how real things can be make to look that are in fact not real at all. But, just as easily, there are only so many catagories that can be contrived as "conspiracies", and I can also see how easy it would be for someone tired of writing about the same old things, to come up with a brand new idea - "The great hoax of the moon landings". Hhmmmm. Don't really know for sure what to think about the whole thing. I wasn't there. I don't trust our government not to lie to us, that's for sure. I also don't take every conspiracy theory seriously either.

It's probably best to just quit worrying about it. It happened, or it didn't. So what? No one was killed or anything. Let it be a mystery, until you or I actually go. Or don't.

Just my 2 1/2 cents



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat
Don't really know for sure what to think about the whole thing. I wasn't there. I don't trust our government not to lie to us, that's for sure.

You are entitled to that belief CyberKat; but don't let your political views get mixed up with the science. Being anti-government does not give you blanket immunity to discount whatever you do not agree with.




Originally posted by golemina
The problem with the 'universe exploding out of nothingness' is that it is nonsensical. It basically argues that 0 = 1. It is total speculation.

The real problem comes in when that becomes the conceptual basis for extrapolating/seeking real knowledge.

Mr. golemina, again, just because science does not fit your belief structure does not make it wrong! You are attempting to disprove a theory about the origins of the universe put forth by the smartest human beings--which has mountains of supporting evidence mind you--by simply calling it 'nonsensical'. So...you know more about Cosmology than the experts in the field, who just happen to comprise the smartest the human race has to offer?
Interesting.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by CyberKat
Don't really know for sure what to think about the whole thing. I wasn't there. I don't trust our government not to lie to us, that's for sure.

You are entitled to that belief CyberKat; but don't let your political views get mixed up with the science. Being anti-government does not give you blanket immunity to discount whatever you do not agree with.




Originally posted by golemina
The problem with the 'universe exploding out of nothingness' is that it is nonsensical. It basically argues that 0 = 1. It is total speculation.

The real problem comes in when that becomes the conceptual basis for extrapolating/seeking real knowledge.

Mr. golemina, again, just because science does not fit your belief structure does not make it wrong! You are attempting to disprove a theory about the origins of the universe put forth by the smartest human beings--which has mountains of supporting evidence mind you--by simply calling it 'nonsensical'. So...you know more about Cosmology than the experts in the field, who just happen to comprise the smartest the human race has to offer?
Interesting.


Backtoreality,

I thought that this is a forum for all of us to learn from each other by throwing out ideas, then collaborating on them and hopefully coming out with more than we went in with.

Why do you seem to find it appropriate to quote half sentences then throw accusations? This is not nice, nor is it beneficial to the forum.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat
Me, just beginning to really get into "Conspiracy Theories", etc... fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Well, after having a few months to toy with the idea, I decided that it is no more proven one way or the other than it ever was. I mean, I've been to Universal Studios, I know how just how real things can be make to look that are in fact not real at all. But, just as easily, there are only so many catagories that can be contrived as "conspiracies", and I can also see how easy it would be for someone tired of writing about the same old things, to come up with a brand new idea - "The great hoax of the moon landings". Hhmmmm. Don't really know for sure what to think about the whole thing. I wasn't there. I don't trust our government not to lie to us, that's for sure. I also don't take every conspiracy theory seriously either.

OK, here's the whole paragraph. Doesn't change your statement though.


My contribution is to debunk your agenda. This thread is about the moon landing. Your post is trying to tie together your anti-government beliefs with the moon landing--with absolutely no proof.

That's where I stepped in to call you on it.

Now, if you are sitting on the smoking gun evidence, then come forward with it. Otherwise, statements like 'I don't trust the government, so it might be a hoax' are nothing more than empty beliefs.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
'So...you know more about Cosmology than the experts in the field, who just happen to comprise the smartest the human race has to offer?'
Hey there BtR! And what can I say... It's a gift.


and call me golem.


After all, it was only brought up to make a point, and more importantly... I am having fun. It would be great if anyone in this thread was also having fun. I operate in a 100% no-fault mode, 100% of the time...

I think this implied notion being put forth about someone/anyone 'losing some fur' or that somehow these discussions are something about 'picking your fights'...

Do I really need to say anything about that point of view?


Now with regards to the 'cosmology' part... If you really look at what I said, you will see that I have reduced it to a fairly straightforward premise. More importantly, what I said clearly shows how 'the smartest the human race' have strayed from Science to what is essentially Philosophy.

Don't be afraid to correct me whereever you think I've gone wrong with whatever you have in your toolkit/skillset. I'm always up for a great thread BtR.


'...and the rant ends with the answer.'
You ARE quite the charmer!

Hmm.... It kind of looks like this seems to distress you BtR. If it makes you uncomfortable, we really don't need to discuss it further...

But! That is what great forums like this are all about... Right?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
you still havn't answered my question, so I wil lrepeat it

What evidance do you need to prove the moon landing wasn't a hoax?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Now with regards to the 'cosmology' part... If you really look at what I said, you will see that I have reduced it to a fairly straightforward premise.

I looked at what you said. I couldn't find what point you were trying to make. Can you restate it, preferrably not mixed in with the statements of many others?





More importantly, what I said clearly shows how 'the smartest the human race' have strayed from Science to what is essentially Philosophy.

I'll answer this one once I see where it is you are going with your 'premise'.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
you still havn't answered my question, so I wil lrepeat it

What evidance do you need to prove the moon landing wasn't a hoax?


Some people are so glum that the only way they will ever believe is if they are strapped to a rocket and dropped off next to one of the landers!

There is no point trying to convince them as they are very ignorant and will never accept the truth.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
'What evidance do you need to prove the moon landing wasn't a hoax?'
Some might say it is rather difficult the way the question is phrased to 'prove a negative'. I will leave that mental exercise to the obviously superior intellect of 'they are very ignorant and will never accept the truth' I_U.


Taking the liberty of reconstructing your question and at the risk of repeating myself, to something like...

What would it take to validate the NASA/Apollo missions using the 'visual record' as evidence of the actual Moon landings?

The short answer... Can't be done. NASA has basically discredited itself. Once an entity discredits itself... Anything they have to say should be considered tainted and suspect.

(Here comes the repeating, not to mention subtle, part...)

I am not saying we didn't go to the Moon. I am saying the 'visual record' offered up by NASA documenting that effort is a fabrication, and a horribly poor one at that.

To get a better understanding of how and why something like this can even seem plausible, it is necessary to look at the issue from a much wider perspective. It's not like anything any government agency does occurs in a vacuum. No, it's all 'visible' to the public and hence the whims of the mechanisms of PR.

That's why the relatively simplistic viewpoint...

'You are entitled to that belief CyberKat; but don't let your political views get mixed up with the science.'

though it would seem to on the surface be a valid concept, becomes woefully untenable when exposed to the light of day that is our daily reality...

The 'Moon landing' was essentially a real-time event. It's hard to say why the guys making the decisions decided to go the way we are left to debate.

I imagine it came down to the desire for a superior degree of control of what the public actually saw, but more importantly the successul projection of a slickness and mastery of an insanely difficult project by NASA, the golden child of all the federal agencies.

If ANYTHING had gone SIGNIFICANTLY wrong, there is absolutely nothing that could have been done to recover from a disasterous 'loss of face'. Remember that historically this was a trying time for the USA.

Avoidance, driven by in this case the fear of failure, is one of the most powerful hidden controlling influences over human behavior, even for an agency like NASA.

Last, but not least...


'I'll answer this one once I see where it is you are going with your 'premise'.

It's kind of a tangent/OT to this thread BtR. If you start/join a thread in the appropriate forum, I would be more than glad to kick that topic around with you.




[edit on 6-7-2005 by golemina]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
golemina,

Just a word of advice:
It's really difficult to see where one rebuttal ends and the quotting of another person begins. I can see that you want to reply to everyone's comments, but it might be easier to understand if you just stuck to the top 3 or 4 and explained your thoughts a little more. Also including the userid of the quote would help too. Stick around though, you have a lot to say and that's more than welcome.


jra

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So if I read your post correctly golemina, you believe they did go to the moon, but that all the photos shown are fake? What are your reasons for believing that they are fake? We already covered the whole crosshair thing, got any other reasons? Why would they need to fake the 'visual record' as you so subtly put it, if they did indeed go to the moon?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
I am not saying we didn't go to the Moon. I am saying the 'visual record' offered up by NASA documenting that effort is a fabrication, and a horribly poor one at that.



A horribly poor one?

The photographs were taken 384,400km from Earth, in the 60's, by astronauts wearing rediculously big suits using a camera with about the same amount of technology in it as a carrot!

Maybe next time they should take David Bailey with them!


Why would NASA go to the Moon then fake the photographs and footage?

Mic



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
So if I read your post correctly golemina, you believe they did go to the moon, but that all the photos shown are fake? What are your reasons for believing that they are fake? We already covered the whole crosshair thing, got any other reasons? Why would they need to fake the 'visual record' as you so subtly put it, if they did indeed go to the moon?


UFO's and moon bases. Thats the only thing that seems plausible. See I have come round and accepted that we did go to the moon but alot of the pictures were doctored, millions of them doctored.

Have you heard any of the witnesses from The Disclosure Poject
. Military personal, Moon bases, Disarmerment of nuclear arms. Its all very weird.


jra

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
So let's say their are Moonbases and all that stuff. (I assume by UFO's you mean Alien ships). So with all that. Why would they still need to doctor the photos then? If they had Moonbases. How hard would it then be to just go out to some part of the Moon and do some filming and take some pictures? Not too hard I think.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
'What evidance do you need to prove the moon landing wasn't a hoax?'
Some might say it is rather difficult the way the question is phrased to 'prove a negative'. I will leave that mental exercise to the obviously superior intellect of 'they are very ignorant and will never accept the truth' I_U.


Taking the liberty of reconstructing your question and at the risk of repeating myself, to something like...

What would it take to validate the NASA/Apollo missions using the 'visual record' as evidence of the actual Moon landings?


Yes it can be done. By looking at other visible evidance, especially foreign and civilian (i.e observatories that tracked the Apollo mission.) As well as audio. Kind of hard to dispute the audio when anyone who has a sensitve enough reciever could listen in as the astronauts dig for rocks on the moon.

Just like you would in a court case you have to submit and verify the authenticity and validity of any evidance.

Your ignoring any proof that is presented yet cling to your own 'logic' which has no proof to support it except opinion. Not to metion the constant minor insults trying to show how superior you are.

Yes the visual record was able to be used as proparganda, but then every single manned mission, and any extra-terrestrial unmanned mission has had visual evidance to be used as properganda, and PR. How else do you think NASA can get more funding? Radio stations put on 'shock jocks' to increase the number of listeners and thus increase advertising revenue, works the same way for NASA in a way



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
everyone seems to forget that there is actually an Infra Red transmitter on the moon that NASA placed there during the moon landing. To this day scientists can send a data stream to the moon and get it relayed back.

I have no sources of this just yet, but did see it in operation on a docco a few months ago.

PS - I am generally a moon landing denier.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join