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: 65
29
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
There appears to be an inability to argue in a logical way here:

person A says X didnt occur.
person B says X DID occur - and points to the existence of Y as proof.

I happen to point out that Y can and has been achieved without
any human needed to be in the area.

person B then says they're willing to contact authority figures with
massive vested interests in having X remain unquestioned - to ask
them 'something' - as if anything said authority figure can say, will
somehow avoid the simple logic-truth of what was stated by me.

(namely that material in existence on the Moon, is no proof of any
physical human placement of the material in the first place. This
kind of placement has been repeatedly done on Mars - yet no one is
pointing to this as part of any 'proof' that humans have therefore
landed on Mars.)

And on a side note, the better-than-I-expected documentary called
"A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon" (available probably
via torrent sites) features a fascinating piece of footage from a NASA
film, dated during the time when Apollo 11 was supposedly nearing the
Moon, but which shows the astronauts in low earth orbit, practising
with a cut out piece of cardboard over the module window, to make
the nearby earth appear to look much smaller (ie: further away)

Folks here so incredibly keen on arguing the mainstream orthodox view
of the Moon landings, might consider watching this documentary, if
only for this amazing piece of genuine NASA film, which clearly wasnt
meant to be distributed - and which all by itself - demonstrates that
a fraud of some kind was consciously being participated in.




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
You know people made that film to sell to people like you. The things you have said about it have already been discussed here before.


jra

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrFrankenstein
And on a side note, the better-than-I-expected documentary called
"A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon" (available probably
via torrent sites) features a fascinating piece of footage from a NASA
film, dated during the time when Apollo 11 was supposedly nearing the
Moon, but which shows the astronauts in low earth orbit, practising
with a cut out piece of cardboard over the module window, to make
the nearby earth appear to look much smaller (ie: further away)


It's funny how the Earth disappears behind the window frame when the camera is moving around. You'll also notice that the Earth doesn't look perfectly round, due to the fact that part of the Earth is in shadow. You can see how the Earth fades into the shadow. That's some amazing cardboard cut out they got there! If they were in LEO, all the clouds and land and all that stuff would be moving by as the CM orbited. The Shuttle and ISS make an orbit every 90min or so. Yet in the video clip, the clouds and all those details arn't moving. Also, if the CM was in LEO. Then how did amature Ham Radio Buffs listen in? They'd notice if the CM was in LEO, because they'd loose the signal as it disappeared behind the horizon, they'd notice that the signal wasn't coming from the direction of the Moon.


Folks here so incredibly keen on arguing the mainstream orthodox view
of the Moon landings, might consider watching this documentary, if
only for this amazing piece of genuine NASA film, which clearly wasnt
meant to be distributed - and which all by itself - demonstrates that
a fraud of some kind was consciously being participated in.


Wasn't ment to be distributed? Then just how did Bart Sibrel get it? Oh that's right, he got it from NASA. It's not top secret or classified footage. It's just of them setting up stuff for a telecast later on. But Sibrel like to play up the 'not for distribution' as meaning classified.

I really don't consider Bart Sibrel to be a nice person. He's the one Buzz Aldrin punched (and for good reason). Ambushing former astronauts and accusing them of lying is really lame. He also walked into another astronauts home uninvited and accused him of lying as well (he got a mild kick in the butt for that).



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
You keep seeming to want to use the phrase to describe folks in this thread of being 'people like you'...

Would you shed some light on what people you are accusing of 'that' are supposed to be, from your learned viewpoint, guilty of?


JRA...

I'm so disappointed you didn't share with us one of your now famous 'explain away' 'rationales' of why despite the marketing glossies (and links/artists concepts BodeBliss
), no one seems to be able to say for certain where (+ name, location, director, budget?
) in the aerospace pantheon, the facilities exist for the continued monitoring of distance to the Moon... via our mirror arrays.

MrFrankenstein, guy, the thread has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with logic and especially not reason... an honest observer might describe it as something along the lines of...

It's all pure dogma... wrapped within still more dogma... jammed down our throats from atop a thread story soapbox...



The reaction you get from the avid NASA supporters kind of reminds me of the reaction you get to that joke about NO ONE except the leader of the LDS goes into the room to commune with the Creator... when you point out *cough* AND the cleaning lady *cough*.




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
golemina,

Where is your evidence as to why anyone should distrust NASA?

You are pathetic! You attack the messengers and have nothing to add.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

You keep seeming to want to use the phrase to describe folks in this thread of being 'people like you'...

Would you shed some light on what people you are accusing of 'that' are supposed to be, from your learned viewpoint, guilty of?


I was talking about people who eat up garbage facts when they could have real food. People who would believe any lie, but can't stomach truth.

This looks bad for golemina.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
On the 'people like you' thing...

For a second, I was dreadfully afraid it might be something of consequence that may of eluded us wannabe heretics/intellectuals/investigators/ATSers.

Thanks for allaying those fears.



I'm sorry brother, I have got to confess that I have no idea where you're coming and further apologize for basically NOT having any idea what you're talking about.

If someone has a BodeBliss->reality translator...

Please chime in... and thanks in advance.


In case anyone got lost... SHP, as a courtesty, is looking into some casual inquiries about the laser based systems that would be needed to hopefully ping the Moon mirror arrays.

But it's not like honest observers need to be provided with a summary of the discussion...

Much less in crayon.





[edit on 27-9-2006 by golemina]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
You are no intellectual, golemina.

where is the evidence as to why anyone should doubt NASA's account of history?



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
>You are no intellectual...

You could be right...


Maybe you can appreciate the analogy of how long ago farmers used to separate the wheat from the chaff... So too we can separate, as you seem to intent on doing, the zealous man from the laughing man...



Would it be terribly rude of me to inquire to the relevance of your many lines of accusation.

Not to mention... It must be a terrible burden... (In an Adrian Monk voice
) 'It's a gift and a burden'... to apparently be a mind reader such as yourself.


I'm seriously impressed how just reading a few expressed thoughts... in the form of a few words... allows you to somehow see into peoples innermost psyches...

Slap! (Back to reality...
)

No really... What are they putting in your water in Cleveland?



Why does my heretics viewpoint of the Gospel according to NASA apparently distress you so?


Can you do a guy that apparently you have little respect for the tinest of favors... Can we wander back on topic... Or at least try to pretend like we have the slightest idea of the nature of a structured argument...




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Wandering back on topic and away from reflections upon personalities is a very good idea since this page is almost entirely dedicated to that tendency.

Not pointing any fingers here...just saying.




posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I'm still looking for your non existent evidence. Are you going to provide it?



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I guess that would be a 'no'.



I've got to agree with the nice moderator...

So no offense BodeBliss if you don't draw any further responses with your musings (Yes! I am being VERY kind
).

So to sum up, we seem unable (or haven't yet found) to find anyone who is able to provide any real world evidence of exactly how, if we so chose, we could conduct a mirror arrays DO EXIST on the Moon confirmation test...




posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
GOLIMA :

Your latest demand is for the name , location , director and budget ???????????? WTF do you want budget for ? of the observatories conducting lunar ranging research

Now the names , have already been given , several times – you have simply ignored them , why ????

The locations , could be deduced from the named facilities given – there is only one APACHE observatory [ the one I cited ] , so the fact you still demand locations shows you have not invested any time or effort into educating yourself

Why should we ????????????

On the topic of “ location “ what evidence do we have that you have any intent to actually travel to the sites conducting these tests ??? one is in Hawaii – would you go there ??

The identity of the director is irrelevant , but again , there is only one director for each facility – and their names do appear on the official websits – again evidence that you are a lazy bone idle troll who has no interest in actually learning anything


The demand for their budget is pure trollish idiocy –

Your current thrust is that you , by mere “ qualification “ that you do not believe it to be true , have earned the right to inspect and audit a multi million dollar project – despite having no real qualifications to do so , nor for that matter having shown any capacity to actually understand what data would be available .


Also , SHP asked you a question –


To prevent further denials from you, tell me the exact question you would like the program director to answer


You have not answered – did you not understand the question ??

You have noted his post – are you afraid to actually ask a question , because you know you will have to address the answer ?

What queries do you wish to put to the director of the McDonald ?? and more important – why are you incapable of asking them yourself ???

The biggest problem here is that you are a bone idle bastard , who expects to be spoon fed his every whim , however irrelevant or silly

You have clearly done zero research of your own , or perused any of the links / data provided so foar

Your grasp of the science and technology underpinning the project is zero

And yet you demand that a personal demonstration be laid on [ which IMHO - you would be unable to understand , as you cannot actually “ see “ anything , all you would get is the telemetry data

The lasers used are not visible to the naked eye – you do realise that do you not ???

All you would “ see “ is sensor data , All of which would be incomprehensible to you .

You would only have their word that the text had actually happened , and had been successful

A pointless exercise – given that you claim that all published data – from the same people is lies

And yet you expect observatories whose equipment costs millions of dollars and is often booked solid for months in advance by real scientists doing legitimate research to simply “ drop everything “ and put on a show for you .

Your arrogance and naivety is unbelievable .

APE OUT



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
MrFrankenstein :

you may wish to re read golimas " arguments " he claims that there are NO mirror arrays on the moon , of any type - wether placed by US astronauts , by hand , or soviet unmanned probes - by robot arm

yes - the Russians delievered thier own [ french built ] laser reflector to the moon - via thier Lunakhod 2 mission.

so , despite your claims of " logic " you have actually put forward a strawman -- because none of golimas oponents in this matter claim that the existance of lunar relectors on the moon is proof of manned missions .

ooooops



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
... Signifying nothing.

What is the fuss there IA?

If all of the hardware is in place... Shouldn't be that big a deal to actually use it for it's intended purpose... Of course, available to public scrutiny.




Go to Hawaii? Or whereever... some of us might be able to afford it.


Speaking of nothing... The objections being raised by the NASA disciples are more those the actions of someone trying to defend what doesn't exist/never occurred...

Versus the one of the BASIC TENETS OF SCIENCE...

You know... being able to reproduce a result.



I'm... challenging... YOU... to... reproduce... the... range... finding... tests... /results...

Can... you... understand... that?

In... the... REAL... WORLD.

Not... on... some... 'web site'.



I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand that difference... The premise of a SHOW ME strategem.


Which also begs a further question...

Why the animosity?

One other tiny little point... Among other things, my team will do it's own system integrity tests...

So don't you worry your little self about that... And other little things like research facilities having 'names, locations, directors, budgets'.

Some of us
might be a little more equipped to deal with those little facts...

OK?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
May I be the voice of reason and ask:

How in # is he going to be able to actually show you it?
Do you plan on going to his house and let him show you the results even if he had them?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
One question for all of you:

Has anyone changed their opinion regarding the "Moon landing" issue after reading this thread?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
... Signifying nothing.


A perfect description of your bluster and posturing .


What is the fuss there IA?


No fuss , the catalogue of your evasions , dishonesty and refusal to even look at the facts , and most importantly

It is no longer about you – I never did care , I pegged you from the get go as a troll

Now I am going to stick this out so that every one else will see you for what you really are .


If all of the hardware is in place... Shouldn't be that big a deal to actually use it for it's intended purpose... Of course, available to public scrutiny.


It is used , on a nightly basis , by the scientists qualified to use it .

Your strident demand for “ public scrutiny “ is noting more than a red herring – an empty bluster – demonstrated by your point blank refusal to actually take any steps yourself to facilitate such “ inspection “

You still have not answered SHP`s question , nor have you publicly taken any steps to “ make it happen “ – why is that ?



Go to Hawaii? Or whereever... some of us might be able to afford it.


Oh really ,

So , a challenge to you , fill in these forms and apply to visit the apache point observatory :

application

application_01

Be sure to state nature of visit correctly , there the ball is in your court – if you actually want to visit – make a legitimate application to do so .

Oh – and fill in a separate copy for each member of your” team” , the instructions are clear – but you still have not told SHP what the exact wording of the question you wish him / her to submit to the director of the McDonald facility on your behalf is yet .


Speaking of nothing... The objections being raised by the NASA disciples are more those the actions of someone trying to defend what doesn't exist/never occurred...


No our exasperations are more to do with the fact that you keep moving the goal posts , and demanding increasingly irrelevant information , and expecting us to spoon feed you

If you ACTUALLY want to visit an observatory , and have a “ team “ as you claim , and the means / opportunity / funding to fly to Hawaii at the drop of a hat – as you claim

Why are you singularly incapable of doing anything for yourself ?????


You know... being able to reproduce a result.


The results have been reproduced , to the satisfaction of scientists world wide

Why do you insist on appointing yourself sole judge of validity ??

A bit fooking arrogant is it not .

Especially as you have demonstrated no legitimate qualification for this status .


I'm... challenging... YOU... to... reproduce... the... range... finding... tests... /results...


I cannot , because i do not work at an observatory – but you know this – and are simply trolling for cheep points

Thousands of rangings have been made – and scrutinized by experts – their validity assured – they have been published – and the data correlated to show that the moon is receding from the earth at a different rate to that previously thought

The results are also published in print journals [ several peer review publications [ where they are scrutinized by eminently qualified scientists from around the world

And none , raise any doubts or objection .

But now you have elected yourself as supreme arbiter of the validity of this program – and demand that only you can pronounce it legitimate , and only be personal inspection

Though you still have failed to demonstrate any qualification which renders you fit for this assignment .

So just re iterate – what is your actuall problem with reading web published data – its not the validity – you are just throwing random obstacles in the track to justify the fact that you do not want to look at it .


In... the... REAL... WORLD. …………………… Not... on... some... 'web site'.


What is you honest objection to the web ?

apache_results

Gives concise and detailed experimental data , and has been downloaded and reviewed by scientists around the world – and none have questioned its validity .

If you are so convinced that your objections to this projects validity are correct – why have you not published your “damming critique “ < sic > in a legitimate astronomy journal or professional venue ???

Despite the fresh claim that you have a “ team “ now – you have done nothing to show that you have any qualification to rationally analyse the data presented , or be accepted as legitimate observes at a scientific institute

Research laboratories are not venues for public spectacle – so stop demanding that you have an automatic right to view such inner workings , just because you want to .

The real world dos not work that way --



I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand that difference... The premise of a SHOW ME strategem.


I understand only to well , your “ show me premise “ is the bluster of a dishonest charlatan who refuses to look at perfectly valid data

And arrogantly concludes that he , and he alone is worthy , and capable of determining the validity of an experiment – and that he must do this in person


Which also begs a further question...

Why the animosity?


Why ? your willfull ignorance , trollish attitude , unbelievable arrogance and plain refusal to honestly approach the issue .


One other tiny little point... Among other things, my team will do it's own system integrity tests...


Hmmm , you have a “ team “ , what are the qualifications of your “ team “ – you have refused to divulge yours . so how about them – are they anonymous armchair experts – as you seem to be ?

Who are they , if we are going to peruse this further – we need to know the caliber of the “ team “ we may be dealing with . call it a “ show me strategy “

So who are they , names , occupations , relevant qualifications . ??


So don't you worry your little self about that... And other little things like research facilities having 'names, locations, directors, budgets'.

Some of us
might be a little more equipped to deal with those little facts...

OK?


If you were “ equipped “ to deal with this situation, in any way shape or form – you would not need us would you ???

The bottom line is if you wanted to personally check on these experiments , you would have done so already – or atleast laid the groundwork for your attempt .

The fact that you are here , on an web forum demanding “answers “ while simultaneously claiming that web published data does not meet your criteria for validity speaks volumes .

PS – SHP is waiting the text of the questions you wish to be forwarded to the McDonald facility .



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
One question for all of you:

Has anyone changed their opinion regarding the "Moon landing" issue after reading this thread?



good question

i have been on various forums addressing the apollo hoax claims for years -- and have seen almost all arguments or variations there of .

and the bottom line is that all " it was a hoax " claims , are rooted firmly in dishonesty , ignorance , lack of relevant education , faulty logic or failure to review all the relevant data .

thus - all the " side switchers " i have seen have abandoned thier views that apollo was a hoax - once they honestly reviewed all the facts -- and actually understood the nature of the data , and science behind it .

those who cling to the hoax belief after exposure to evidence - are always trolls and dishonest charlatans .



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Nice try IA!

Would it be terribly rude of me to point out that the 'applications' for the observatory (you are 'rolling' out to great fanfare in your head?
) are signups for telescope time.



>Cheep points

Cheap points? Please what is it per post a staggering 1 or 2 points?

Do I really need to say anything...


At 283x points, I must be a points juggernaut.



You might consider easing back on your admonitions (
), cuz quite frankly I subscribe to a no fault, no blame mindset... that wannabe emotional overlay stuff/outbursts gets stripped off and never makes it to content parsing.

All the emotional noise you are attempting to generate... doesn't mask the lack of information you are sharing with us...

It's always nice to deal with just the facts...

which seem to be vacant from your rather voluminous post.


Again, at the risk of coming off pedantic , might I suggest you take a course in LOGIC (usually masquerading as a course in philosopy
), so that you might have at least the tiniest of passing chances on constructing an argument in support of your case...

Which is unfortunately STILL lacking.

Your 'results' page only yielded access error(s)... Must be the hours that I keep.


I guess I will try it again later.


I see claims by you for results... but no results.



Let me explain how the SHOW ME strategem works...

All you are sharing with us is claims of results....

SHOW ME those results.

> If you were “ equipped “ to deal with this situation, in any way shape or form – you would not need us would you ???you would not need us would you ???

The world is a rather large place. There is an absolutely unending for an inquiring mind to spend countless lifetimes interacting with the true incredible nature of the little blue ball we all live on...

Some of my friends and I were engaged in a topic that touchs on this very notion... What would Da Vinci do with his time in this day and age?

...

It really doesn't bother me that you pretend to be an insider to the observatory that houses the range finding equipment...

Whose existence in a true 'work a day' has yet to be established/validated.

I understand that based on the results you are sharing with us my requests for 'name, location, director, budget' of the range finding facilities apparently exceed your abilities...

Let's cut that list back to how about just of the NAME of the 'device'.

Don't you think laser 'range finding' equipment... IF indeed in service... would have a 'name'... Just like all working observatory telescopes?


Does that sound reasonable to you IA?

[edit on 1-10-2006 by golemina]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join