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.

 

[Revealed] Apollo Hoax Betrayed by UFO Reports?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
Better examples for your viewing pleasure:
www.clavius.org...



The individual who runs Clavius.org is Jay Windley - who has been proven to manufacture quotes and take other quotes completely out of context:








[edit on 21-7-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


i have a question. is this poor attempt at character assassination, in your mind, somehow lowering the validity of the principles described in the linked example? because this should be obvious through common sense, and you could test this so easily that im wondering why you haven't already if you have doubts.

oh, and your sources for this character assassination are not credible at all.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Your second picture has multiple light sources. Nice straw-man.


The second light source theory has many problems, not the least of which is that two light sources would tend to leave two shadows for each object, and I only see one shadow for each object.


Originally posted by nablator
Better examples for your viewing pleasure:
www.clavius.org...


Nablator, that debunker really did a lot of excellent work! Great find, thanks!
Exuberant1, please study that linked document posted by nablator carefully.



Originally posted by Exuberant1
The individual who runs Clavius.org is Jay Windley - who has been proven to manufacture quotes and take other quotes completely out of context:

What difference does it make who produced the document, if you can produce the same effect in your own back yard? Are you suggesting you can't? Have you tried? Why don't you try attacking some of the arguments made in the document instead of making personal attacks against the person who made the document? Or better yet, actually READ the document and try to understand it, and see if you can duplicate the effect at home so you can see it doesn't matter who says it, if the effect can be duplicated.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the image you are discussing and another taken a few seconds before:

The shadows are the same length in the one:



Now look at the difference as the astronaut nears the light source - this doesn't happen with sunlight and on level terrain:


[edit on 21-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



I know it's been metioned before, but I'll have to say it again.

Shadows SHORTEN as you get closer to a spot light source!!

Your photos accually prove this is not level ground, even if is was a spot light, because the ONLY way for a shadow to lengthen as it gets closer to a light source is for it to be on uneven ground.

a good example...




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



...Jay Windley - who has been proven to manufacture quotes and take other quotes completely out of context...


YOU?!? Resorting to ad hom attacks?!?! What happened to yoru pedestal?

Oh...and consider where you are getting your "proofs" of these events....you don't think 'moonfaker' has too high an opinion of himself, do you? Because, I sure do --- and most people who can bear to watch his garbage videos agree.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

The individual who runs Clavius.org is Jay Windley - who has been proven to manufacture quotes and take other quotes completely out of context:

Jay Windley is a man of the highest integrity possible, and in fact, he has been the most level-headed, consistent, and fair person I've ever encountered online. You, on the other hand, refuse to even acknowledge your own opinion of Apollo. You don't always say what you truly think, you won't even stand by your own beliefs when confronted, and that's the most important test of a person's integrity. You don't seem to think integrity is important until the opportunity to slander someone else's integrity presents itself. Shameful.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

By the way Exubie, I got a chance to watch those videos. The focus of them seems to be John Lear and even HE thinks we went to the moon, all he said is he's not 100% sure. If you study the rules of science, a good scientist is rarely 100% sure about anything, so I see a scientist saying they are not 100% sure as a scientist being a scientist, he's reading way more into it than that. He didn't say how sure he is, but "probably" means over 50% sure and could be up to 99% sure.

Once you get beyond that fact that those videos actually support that we went to the moon per John Lear, all that's left is narrator of those videos carrying on like a 3 year old saying "but he said that...no he didn't, the other guy said that...where;s the proof of who said what when?" pretty much off topic IMO, he's worried about some silly e-mails when we are trying to focus on facts and evidence of the actual case instead of some silly nonsense over who sent what e-mail to whom. In fact you can tell from his profuse apology to John Lear that Lear was pretty annoyed by being dragged into all that silly e-mail nonsense too! I really don't think those videos helped your case at all and probably hurt more than help.

So did you try Windley's experiment in your back yard? If you think he's faking that experiment, then tell us how, but it looks pretty straightforward to me. I think anyone should be able to duplicate it.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


let us know when you've actually tested this after the 5 minutes it takes to do that, exuberant.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join