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.
Yes. They've never been to the moon, so no matter what they say, they do NOT have first hand experience because they've never been there themselves.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
Yes. They've never been to the moon, so no matter what they say, they do NOT have first hand experience because they've never been there themselves.
But Donna Hare was an expert in the lunar landscapes. She drew the maps and literally went over thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pictures showing the moons surface.
You don't seem to understand what "first hand" experience is. That means you went somewhere yourself and saw something for yourself. It doesn't mean you drew a map, it doesn't mean you saw a picture. It means you saw it personally. Did she see anything personally? No, and if she says so she's delusional or mistaken. This is an important distinction - just because someone is familiar with the topography of a given area does not make them experts on all the things that can change a second hand observation, be it from film, digital, or word of mouth information. She may be the world's best map maker, but that doesn't make her an expert on camera malfuctions of just plain old noise.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
So, using your definition, all those experts in WWII who studied photographs to locate V1 and V2 missiles
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
"WHAT?"
Donna Hare minutely inspected thousands, at least, of moon photographs so she could draw her detailed maps. She was ideally placed to know if something on those pictures was strange and out of place.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
When someone who spends years minutely studying the lunar surface suddenly comes forward and says that she was shown a lunar base I, for one, think we have to take her seriously and can't just discount her testimony as being the ramblings of some delusional woman.
Hare insisted that NASA was retouching photographs of the lunar surface, airbrushing out "anomalies" such as flying saucers. Nowhere did she talk about a lunar base. You're confusing the two interview in the video, Karl Wolf was the one claiming to have seen the base.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Yes, I know but whether it's a round shaped flying disc sitting on the moon or a rectangular building sitting there, what's the difference?
Donna Hare is perfectly placed to say what should or shouldn't be on the moon. The very fact that she has come forward saying she's seen objects on the moon
It sounds now like she was saying she was seeing photos that showed objects "near" the moon, not "on" the moon. If a part of the probe that took the picture were in the photo would she say that's something that shouldn't be "near" the moon? She's trained to map the moon, not rule out mundane causes of so-called "anomalies" with the photographic equipment.
Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by ngchunter
And if so, if the object she says she saw was a real unknown wouldn't she still be qualified to make that judgement?
Originally posted by ngchunter
No. She's not a spaceflight systems expert. I want to see the evidence of whatever she claims to have seen.
Originally posted by SpaceMax
As for finding that particular frame, NASA thoughtfully employed a centuries-old technique for organizing things.......they numbered them.
Point taken Zorgon. (If that is your real name....)
More room for lolcats and porn?
Just guessing..
Does your copy include the calibration data? The little greyscales, lines and numbers at one end of the the strips. (each strip is referred to as a "framelet")
So, if you wanted to see a crater on framelet 52, around the 45th registration mark (counting up from the callibration set,) then I would know exactly where you were looking. Narrow it down for me a bit and I'll see what I can do.
Originally posted by Majorionthink about it this way, if even one of these witnesses is telling the truth.. then it's over.
Originally posted by ngchunter
They could be telling the truth but still be wrong and mistaken. That's my point. There's no reason to believe otherwise until such time that evidence is brougth forth.
Originally posted by MajorionOver 500 whistleblowers and witnesses could ALL be wrong and mistaken?.. LOL.. that's quite the statement. You're kidding, right?
Originally posted by ngchunter
No, I'm not kidding, and you're engaging in the logical fallacy of argument ad populum.
Originally posted by Majorion
Let me see, which one of us illogical..hmm?.. the one who says that over 500 witnesses and whistleblowers are mostly telling the truth
and at least a few of them of accurate?.. or the one who says that they are ALL mistaken? hmm.. must be a hard choice eh?