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.

 

Apollo 11 Armrstrong “These babies were huge, sir!”

page: 21
183
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
For you to believe this is true, one would also have to dismiss NASAs new claim that they are unable to go to the moon because of problems with radiation.


It isn't a new claim. It has nothing to do with "lost technology" or anything like that. It's simply about time. The longer you stay, the more radiation your body absorbs.

The longest time they spent on the Moon surface was 3 days (6 days in orbit). The new missions plan to stay for weeks to months at a time. Thus the radiation dose will be higher and that's why it's more of a problem.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
My the gullable sheeple come in droves...dont they. No wonder the government has been able to get away with so much....they never lie!!

You wanted the original transcripts to compare your alleged recordings to, I just gave you what you asked for. I didn't expect to be personally insulted in return. If you have a problem with them, if you can prove a lie or omission exists in these transcripts, let's see the evidence instead of appeals to incredulity.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
***snip***
It would have been much easier on you, me and this entire thread had you simply said "Can you try to contact some Ham's and begin the search?", instead of blasting out with the smerky method you did use.
***snip***


I know. I'm sorry.

I'ts just extremely frustrating to see post after post playing the devils advocate and you keeping on and on about the poor un-believers that need proof and that they should find it, when in fact it would have been just as easy for you to say "Hey guys and girls, I'm in a unique postition to ask some old time ham'ers about this. I'll do that and get back to you."

I guess my frustration got multiplied because I for once saw someone that could actually contribute in a valuable way rather than quote old refuted stuff off internet sites that are tainted.

Sorry for the strong wording. Hope you will forgive my less than diplomatic way of communicating my frustrations.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 


Wow, tons of fascinating info in your link. Thanks, a tad too technical for my atom-sized brain though. Incredible that data is from 1966.

Sorry if I'm digressing a bit. Here is a simple diagram I found for the less technical like myself with an overview of the "rudimentary" communications set up:



Link: www.hq.nasa.gov...

Sorry, that is all I have to offer at this time.

However, If I could mediate. I do think ngc was simply providing the info RF requested regarding a comparison for "alleged" ham radio recordings with the link to NASA recordings at the 365 site. ( Awesome resource) and as Armap so subetly pointed out available on page 5 of this thread as well.

Nonetheless, I am learning much about this subject. Hours of "G-Rated" conspiracy goodness.

Regards......KK

edit to repair cropped diagram, fix typos.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Kinda weird as I am new here, first post.

I have been visiting and reading certain topics and visiting the links included, very interesting stuff.

Anyway, what really is blowing my mind as I was reading this thread
(at the time of this posting)
and reading at the various links within.

I am sitting here watching
2001: A Space Odessey.
Made in 1968

watching it one would never think it was made in 1968

very deja-vuish

Super computer HAL



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by finishr1
 


Dave....Dave...I can't see anything Dave

A bit off topic but, you're new and I wanted to welcome you to ATS and good job getting in the mix and posting.

It's rumoured that Kubrick was involved in of the Elite socieites and defected revealing secrets in his movies, the above mentioned, Clockwork Orange (MKULTRA) and Eyes Wide Shut. In the opening scenes of EWS at the party....notice the wall decorations of light..everyone is 'illuminated.'

Forgive me fellow ATSers for going off topic - just wanted to welcome a new member!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by RFBurns
My the gullable sheeple come in droves...dont they. No wonder the government has been able to get away with so much....they never lie!!

You wanted the original transcripts to compare your alleged recordings to, I just gave you what you asked for. I didn't expect to be personally insulted in return. If you have a problem with them, if you can prove a lie or omission exists in these transcripts, let's see the evidence instead of appeals to incredulity.


Well I appreciate the link to the NASA source, but given that NASA has been known to omit segments in videos, audio recordings, documents and transcripts, there is the question of those transcripts you linked to as being true and un-altered.

Just becasue its spooling from a NASA server does not dismiss the possiblity it is not in its original form.

If I had any trust in those sources, which I already knew the links to, again thanks for posting it for others, I wouldnt need to question their validity. But since I and others do have that right to question, no amount of linking, debunking, ridiculing, screaming or shouting or ganging up on me can sway me to stop questioning and seeking the truth.

I seek the truth for "ME"..not you or anyone else. And when "I" am satsified with what I find, then "I" come to "MY" own conclusions for "ME". And I have been doing this stuff for decades. So I know what to trust, and what not to trust.


Do not feel singled out with my statement, that was intended for all of the rush-in debunkers who suddenly show up in these specific threads alone and exchange stars between themselves to appear to be right to those unsuspecting participants who are actually trying to get down to the bottom of these anomalies.

It would be different if the ratio was equal in the other "out there" conspiracies being discussed..but anyone with a pre school education level and see where the most debunking activity takes place. Its just a matter of simply looking and comparing.

Thanks again for posting the link.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 24-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Yeah, they really do show up in droves to these NASA and space UFO conspiracy threads. Probably because they find them the easiest to "debunk", seeing as how the average person doesn't know very much about space and will accept any technical garble they spew out.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by UnconventionalRyan1990]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, they really do show up in droves to these NASA and space UFO conspiracy threads. Probably because they find them the easiest to "debunk", seeing as how the average person doesn't know very much about space and will accept any technical garble they spew out.


Close but no cigar-shaped UFO. Space buffs show up on these sites because they find pretend-experts spewing cosmo-garble in front of a poorly informed but over-enthusiastic public, even though the claimed 'space UFOs' really are bunk. With genuine experience and expertise, these stories can be debunked, as they deserve.

The sad part comes when those who have been conned into thinking they've seen something really exciting and extraordinary angrilly reject the sensible and fact-based prosaic explanations, mock them, and viciously attack the explainers as liars, tools of the Dark Forces, evil folks.

It happens a lot. That's usually the way it goes when, for example, an art collector has been sold a fake -- they have so much ego involved in their own judgment, they're often the last (if ever) to admit they had been misled. Changing your mind takes a humility and an open mind, mental attributes that most folks only pick up through long (and often painful) experience.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well I appreciate the link to the NASA source, but given that NASA has been known to omit segments in videos, audio recordings, documents and transcripts, there is the question of those transcripts you linked to as being true and un-altered.

How axiomatic of you. As I said, if you can prove that the transcripts are altered, prove it. It's not a given.


Just becasue its spooling from a NASA server does not dismiss the possiblity it is not in its original form.

So far it is the most reliable source, the transcripts given by the OP are full of errors as previously detailed on this thread and not as trustworthy. Just because it comes from NASA does not dismiss the possibility that it IS untouched; it's up to you to prove that it isn't.


If I had any trust in those sources, which I already knew the links to, again thanks for posting it for others, I wouldnt need to question their validity.

Why did you ask for the transcripts to compare against the phantom ham recordings if you already knew of the links?


But since I and others do have that right to question, no amount of linking, debunking, ridiculing, screaming or shouting or ganging up on me can sway me to stop questioning and seeking the truth.

I'm not questioning your right to question, I'm asking for proof that these transcripts are censored by NASA. I guess I don't have the right to ask that question here, let alone offer evidence that NASA was actually telling the truth.


Do not feel singled out with my statement, that was intended for all of the rush-in debunkers who suddenly show up in these specific threads alone and exchange stars between themselves to appear to be right to those unsuspecting participants who are actually trying to get down to the bottom of these anomalies.

If you were trying to get to the bottom of anything you'd be seeking and offering proof. Yet proof is flat-out ignored when it goes against the so-called "anomalies." It's up to you to prove that an anomaly even exists. If you want to believe it exists for yourself without any proof, fine, go right ahead. But don't be so shocked when other people like myself seem skeptical.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by UnconventionalRyan1990
Yeah, they really do show up in droves to these NASA and space UFO conspiracy threads. Probably because they find them the easiest to "debunk", seeing as how the average person doesn't know very much about space and will accept any technical garble they spew out.


Close but no cigar-shaped UFO. Space buffs show up on these sites because they find pretend-experts spewing cosmo-garble in front of a poorly informed but over-enthusiastic public, even though the claimed 'space UFOs' really are bunk. With genuine experience and expertise, these stories can be debunked, as they deserve.


So basicaly what your saying here Jim, is that anyone who questions, anyone who thinks differently, anyone who does not follow the straight and narrow line of 'thats it nothing to see move along', deserves ridicule and debunking?

I say it again..THIS IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP COUNTRY!!!! Those of you who do not like that fact..well I suggest you go find such a country and shunt people's right to individuality and independant thinking all you want.

Again it is amazing how you self proclaimed experts spend so much time in a conspiracy forum where your "expertise" could be better served in a real scientific forum...unless of course..your expertise wont stand up in that kind of environment. I tend to think that is the case.

If all these believers are so wrong, why waste all your time trying to make them think differently when you already know..it doesnt work?


Originally posted by JimOberg
The sad part comes when those who have been conned into thinking they've seen something really exciting and extraordinary angrilly reject the sensible and fact-based prosaic explanations, mock them, and viciously attack the explainers as liars, tools of the Dark Forces, evil folks.


Maybe it is because they have all heard that same old line before Jim, the same "sensible" and so called "fact-based prosaic explanations" since the dawn of the space age. If everything was so cut and dry, there would not be the countless millions questioning these so called "prosaic" explanations...and some of those questioning are ones who were once on that side of "dark forces"...but they woke up and realized they cant treat their fellow human beings like that. Yep...I would definately agree with your definition of your side of the fence as a "dark force".


Originally posted by JimOberg
It happens a lot. That's usually the way it goes when, for example, an art collector has been sold a fake -- they have so much ego involved in their own judgment, they're often the last (if ever) to admit they had been misled. Changing your mind takes a humility and an open mind, mental attributes that most folks only pick up through long (and often painful) experience.


Funny that you wish for the majority to give credibility to an agency which is a part of the known bigger entitiy that has been proven to lie, cheat and deny, and say that the majority are being misled by those who question.

Go figure. Sometimes Jim, that dark force cloud is so black that you wont be able to see past your own eye lid, much less have an open mind, mental attributes and freedom of independant thinking because you have become so entrenched into the stack of lies, your squished in there like a packed sardine with no room to think or accept otherwise.

Amazing.

It sure is nice to be out here in the open, where there is plenty of room for open mindness and independant thought, and freedom of expression and opinion.




Cheers!!!!






posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg ....Changing your mind takes a humility and an open mind, mental attributes that most folks only pick up through long (and often painful) experience.


Wow, that is an awesome quote. And universally so.

Lately, I have been wrong more often than not. Admitting it wasn't so bad after all.

Kinda like overcoming a life-long fear.......death, intimacy, snakes.

( I wish I could get over the "flying-monkeys" in the Wizard of Oz.)

Those babies still get to me.

Back OT:

So I suppose you either believe the lunar conversations took place, or you don't.

The much ballyhooed HAM tapes probably wouldn't change any minds as they'd be deemed suspect.

After 40 years memories fade, ferrous oxide particles demagnatize and folklore becomes fact. Ah, ain't life grand.

July 20th, 1969....what a day.

Regards.....KK



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
It sure is nice to be out here in the open, where there is plenty of room for open mindness and independant thought, and freedom of expression and opinion.....


... and not one shred of verifiable evidence.

Enjoy!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Professor: What really happened out there with Apollo 11? Armstrong: It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city. Professor: How do you mean 'warned off'? Armstrong: I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, they were big!....and menacing! No, there is no questions of a space station. Professor: But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11? Armstrong: Naturally - NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.


Ok... taking a different spin on the conspiracy I'm sure most on ATS are familiar with the conspiracies revolving around the supposed spacecraft the Nazi's were creating at the close of WW2, and even the idea that they had traveled not only to the moon, but also to Mars.

Perhaps we weren't warned off the moon by Aliens, but by other humans.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
How axiomatic of you. As I said, if you can prove that the transcripts are altered, prove it. It's not a given.


Same at you. Prove they are'nt altered. I simply said I dont trust them and that it is well documented and known that NASA has covered up a lot of things. I dont need to prove a thing..however, you do..prove they dont alter anything..as well as those transcripts.


Originally posted by ngchunter
So far it is the most reliable source, the transcripts given by the OP are full of errors as previously detailed on this thread and not as trustworthy. Just because it comes from NASA does not dismiss the possibility that it IS untouched; it's up to you to prove that it isn't.


You are the one stating we can trust NASA..so prove it. Once you can show proof theirs is not altered, then you got proof that the OP's transcripts are false.

Until then...you are in the same boat as the rest.


Originally posted by ngchunter
Why did you ask for the transcripts to compare against the phantom ham recordings if you already knew of the links?


And why not ask for them. Its good to have all of the information that can be gathered to compare all of it to one another. Thats the difference between you and me, I go for as much data possible, not just what is spoonfed by an agency known to lie.


Originally posted by ngchunter
I'm not questioning your right to question, I'm asking for proof that these transcripts are censored by NASA. I guess I don't have the right to ask that question here, let alone offer evidence that NASA was actually telling the truth.


Good, Im happy your not questioning my right, nor am I questioning your right to question. Now that that question is out of the way, Im asking for proof that those transcripts from NASA are not altered. Should be pretty simple to verify...maybe.


Originally posted by ngchunter
If you were trying to get to the bottom of anything you'd be seeking and offering proof. Yet proof is flat-out ignored when it goes against the so-called "anomalies." It's up to you to prove that an anomaly even exists. If you want to believe it exists for yourself without any proof, fine, go right ahead. But don't be so shocked when other people like myself seem skeptical.



Who's proof? Yours? Jim's? Some other member's proof? NASA? And what makes you believe that I must accept your "proof" or anyone elses, or NASA's when there is too much evidence to the contrary that such proof is actually false?

Sorry, but as I told Jim, your not dealing with a newbie here. And as I have told Jim, your dealing with someone who was on their side of the fence years ago and knows far more than both you or Jim want to think..or could possibly imagine.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
It sure is nice to be out here in the open, where there is plenty of room for open mindness and independant thought, and freedom of expression and opinion.....


... and not one shred of verifiable evidence.

Enjoy!



Only one verfiable source that is known to cover up everything and give the run around...almighty NASA.


You bet I will enjoy the open arena to question, feels great! Fresh air, not old and stale.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
OK, how can someone see if the NASA transcripts, audio, video or photos were altered in any way?

We can look for telltale signs of tampering in the photos, but that it's much more difficult to do with the (bad quality) video and audio we have.

Even if someone has copies of the original video and/or audio transmitted, and they do not look/sound like the ones from NASA, how can we be sure what is the right and what is the wrong version?

And both may be right but from different occasions, for example, how can we rule that out?

What "tools" do we have to judge what is acceptable and what is not?

Just our opinion about the source of the information?

I hope there is more than just that.


jra

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Only one verfiable source that is known to cover up everything and give the run around...almighty NASA.


That's a subjective opinion. I have yet to see any evidence of them covering up something, let alone everything.

It's interesting to note how people tend to pick on NASA the most, when they are the ones that give out the most data from their missions, when other space agencies like the ESA, JAXA etc do not. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
OK, how can someone see if the NASA transcripts, audio, video or photos were altered in any way?


Exactly. How many times or instances has NASA been caught with messing with those things? More than once I can assure you.

So we are left with not much to go on, except our own beliefs and confidences.


Originally posted by ArMaP
We can look for telltale signs of tampering in the photos, but that it's much more difficult to do with the (bad quality) video and audio we have.


I often think that one of the reasons why we do not have the prestine copies of these videos is so that it just stirrs up the hornets nest in the UFO community..and on purpose to create that dividing line. NASA knows darn well that every bit of the controversy can be resolved by simply releasing the original everything, unaltered and unedited.

But...they dont. That in itself is what makes the controversy continue..as well as the diversionary tactic to keep attention away from what is important...the truth.


Originally posted by ArMaP
Even if someone has copies of the original video and/or audio transmitted, and they do not look/sound like the ones from NASA, how can we be sure what is the right and what is the wrong version?


Again, if NASA simply released them as they are, for what they are, up front in the begining and not play this "hide and seek and ask and be denied" game of theirs, none of this would be happening.


Originally posted by ArMaP
And both may be right but from different occasions, for example, how can we rule that out?


It wont be easy, even if suddenly NASA was to dump the whole truth out, every document, every tape, every video, every picture, all unaltered and untouched, because of the decades of lies and deceptions, no one will just outright accept them.

Trust is earned over time, not just given away at the spur of the moment. NASA has to re-earn that trust it once had long ago. When NASA earns that trust back, perhaps it wont be so difficult us, to accept what is given upfront.


Originally posted by ArMaP
What "tools" do we have to judge what is acceptable and what is not?


Trust.


Originally posted by ArMaP
Just our opinion about the source of the information?

I hope there is more than just that.


Again..trust. Once that trust is earned, then the judgement of what is acceptable wont be so difficult to sort out.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by RFBurns
Only one verfiable source that is known to cover up everything and give the run around...almighty NASA.


That's a subjective opinion. I have yet to see any evidence of them covering up something, let alone everything.


Its logical to conclude that a thief is not going to pre-warn you that he is fixing to break into your house and steal from your safe and then leave making sure he leaves no trace behind prior to the act.


Originally posted by jra
It's interesting to note how people tend to pick on NASA the most, when they are the ones that give out the most data from their missions, when other space agencies like the ESA, JAXA etc do not. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.


Those other space agencies of other nations have only begun compared to how long NASA has been around. Those other space agencies do not have the track record like NASA, hence it is why there is less "picking" on them than there is on NASA.

Not all at NASA are bad...that is a fact. But there are those bad apples in there that are in control that even those good apples have testified they want the nonsense to end and get things where they belong.

Someday maybe that will happen....someday.


Cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
183
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join