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.

 

Buzz Aldrin Book Signing in Atlanta 9/11

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Ok, well clearly you don't want to understand the issue. You could have told me that before I typed an explanation to you. You want your contention to be "right" and damn the facts.

If you enjoy making mountains out of molehills to support your conspiratorial suppositions, then do not be at all surprised why this subject is continually marginalized. I'm sorry, but I'm not into these long drawn out informational posts for those who seem hell-bent on confrontation without their brains properly loaded.

So, you can continue with broad notions of image reproduction when it's demonstrable here that you are not familiar with the basic concepts.

I laid this out as best I can for you on an internet message board, and rather than address the issues, you become defensive and confrontational.

For example:
"Oh give it a rest.... changing an image from true color showing that the moon is indeed more brown

with touches of green, blue and reds to one that is grayscale is hardly 'enhanced'. It is completely

misleading and pushes an agenda to keep the public brainwashed into thing the moon has no color. "

For one, if it's brainwashing conspiracy that the moon is gray or colored then typing anything here to you is a waste of finger-time. When you're referring to ascetics in image and contrast of color, the more impacting art image to sell is a gray moon surface and a lush blue marble.

It's a print. For sale. Idealized drama. Not a science class. Get it? You're out of depth on the basic premise. Most scholars and interested parties know the moon is not grey. I mean c'mon.

It's always the same on these issues:
Image Sourcing
Transfer into multiple media
Presentation

Anyway, I'll leave this here so as not to further aggravate you (or me for that matter) - but I will say avoidance of the core issues here doesn't further anything to your cause, unless your cause is to be some sort of outlet for wild conspiracy propagation.

And we all know how seriously those people are taken. Case in point.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jritzmann]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
I find it amazing that the US governament went as far as to cover-up my own eyes.


Read Ingo Swann "Penetration" It will be made clear to you
Maybe someone will clip the relevant passage

Ingo was a key player in the CIA remote viewing Project Stargate that ran from 1968 to 1995 when Congress felt it a bad thing to use psychic spies on us... well it just when 'private'



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
If you enjoy making mountains out of molehills to support your conspiratorial suppositions,


This is a conspiracy site... we look at conspiracies here...

In order to support one's conspiracy theory one has to provide evidence...

One of the main theories on the board is "NASA covers up things" So we are supposed to find evidence of said cover up to support that claim...

Then when one does find said evidence... the 'big guns' like you are sent in to attempt to explain it away as nothing...

But you know what? Doesn't work


But I suppose we could all just change to towing the party line... but then it would get pretty boring around here very quickly. I think I will go mow the lawn now...




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


LMAO...now I'm "sent in". Sent by who...and where's my check?

Oh it works my friend, it works to prove again that some people would rather "believe" than know, and base belief on/in a data set they have very little knowledge of in basic principle.

At that point there's nothing I or anyone else can do for you. There's genuinely strange stuff around, there's no doubt of that - but what you've shown here ain't it.

Good day!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
LMAO...now I'm "sent in". Sent by who...and where's my check?


Oh I am sure it's in the mail




Oh it works my friend, it works to prove again that some people would rather "believe" than know, and base belief on/in a data set they have very little knowledge of in basic principle.


Well what I showed wasn't a question of belief... it was real data. Not an Alien base on the Moon but still real data...



At that point there's nothing I or anyone else can do for you. There's genuinely strange stuff around, there's no doubt of that - but what you've shown here ain't it.


Well then care to share that genuinely strange stuff rather than play 'debunker royale'?



Good day!


bu bye now... it's been fun.... see ya in the next Billy Meyer bout



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by fls13


Where's the rocket flame in your 'phony liftoff'




It was a special new rocket formula.
I thought you knew.
Heard this way back on another forum.


[edit on 9/10/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



How about no atmosphere so no flame, fumes or smoke.
Another pure ether wonder.
(Hint on this one: the Moon has no atmospheric gases so what
is left, right the ether.)

This puzzlement would end in possibilities left alone since
we fade from the thought being to stressful as indicated from
one of my other posts.

However, there is a light underneath as the module rose higher.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I hope a bunch of idiots don't go bothering him saying "you are a liar!!!! You never stepped on the moon!!!!". lol.


Oh and I know nasa covers up tons of stuff, I just seriously and truely believe that buzz aldrin and them did walk on there and that wasnt a hoax. Although I'm sure they gave us little to NO info about what was up there and what the gov is actually doing up there...etc.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
How about no atmosphere so no flame, fumes or smoke.


So how come I can see the Shuttle thrusters






You forget that the fuel has its own oxygen. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't see a rocket flame in space?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
How about no atmosphere so no flame, fumes or smoke.


So how come I can see the Shuttle thrusters


Here's the real reason (I think):

www.clavius.org...


"...we should see a visible flame from the lunar module ascent stage. ..."

This argument is based on the assumption that all hypergolic engines behave the same way. The lunar module ascent engine and the space shuttle RCS systems use different fuel. The space shuttle's RCS jets use monomethyl hydrazine (MMH). The lunar lander's ascent engine used Aerozine 50, a trade name for a half-and-half mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) developed for the Titan 2. The photograph above (right) shows a Titan 2 booster with its Aerozine 50 engines firing. In fact, once in operation the Aerozine 50 exhaust plume is essentially colorless and transparent.


See the link for further information and photos of some rockets being tested showing the type of exhaust plume.




[edit on 11-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Total Package

Oh and while we are at it... explain what Neil Armstrong meant when he said:

[B]"breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers"[/B]

You don't have to be Einstein to know that "truths protective layer" means exactly that.... a layer or lies in front of the true that is meant to protect us.

Can anyone explain what Armstrong means by this and then try and tell me Armstrong landed on the moon and the footage we saw on TV and in photos is real and what actually happened.... and not the "lie" layer put in front of the truth to protect us.



Ok, this is an easy one.

First off, the concept of a Veil which protects us from "Truth" is as old as the Sufis. The Sufis, and other Muslim mystics like Rabia constantly referred to this veil, saying that if it were removed we should be burned out of existence.

It's referring to the uniqueness of ourselves and our senses through which our concepts of reality are construed. We see only reflections, and nothing directly, so that if we were to remove all of that which allows us to perceive reality through these senses and other physical metaphors, all distinction would vanish.

Yet if you can at least pull one of the layers of the veil away, you can have amazing breakthroughs in enlightenment.

Now Neil wasn't waxing as philosophically deep as this, but it was the basis of what he was referring to. It's a pretty common perspective of reality, that we place layers of abstraction on reality in order for us to maintain our own survival. Those layers may be religious views, or simple denial, so that fear doesn't get the best of us little insecure creatures.

Neil was attempting to inspire a "new group of taxpayers" to see beyond themselves, not to allow things like the atmosphere (a hugely protective layer) to stop them from pursuing the breakthroughs which will make mankind even greater.



That quite possibly is the worst explanation I have ever seen for Neil Armstrongs cryptic speech. Talk about putting 2 + 2 and getting 5.

And people wonder how secrets can be kept for so long.... this is a perfect example. Armstrong would have to hit you on the head and tell you there are alien bases on the moon for you to start believing... and even then you'd probably call him a liar.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Did anyone reading this go to the book signing yesterday?

I'm curious to know if Buzz punched out any moon landing hoax believers who called him a liar



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Tifozi
I find it amazing that the US governament went as far as to cover-up my own eyes.


Read Ingo Swann "Penetration" It will be made clear to you
Maybe someone will clip the relevant passage


Heya Zorgon,

I'll post them.
(Last time I only posted the first page and a couple clippings to do with the other topic)

In Penetration, Mr Swann talks about how people are forced to draw their conclusions about the Moon from the available information. The key is to control which information becomes available and to also control which information is recognized by 'official sources':



Continued on next page:



*Mr Swann covers the matter in greater detail throughout the rest of the chapter aswell as expounding on and identifying the implications and results of it.

Oh well.


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
OK visible rocket flames.
And then the new fuel situation.

Just how many Moon launches were televised and available to
observe how repetitive the launch mechanics are.

A very explosive send off and nothing like the tenuous launching
from Earth that take forever to start moving.

The fastest launch I've seen are compressed air silo launches
from sub to get the rocket in the air above the water and then
it wastes no time in firing and moving on. These being solid
fuel rockets I assume.

So a solid fuel may be in the lander.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Didn't the photos of the Lunar Lander site from the Indian Space Probe end this debate?

Indian Satellite Confirmed US Moon Landing



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Didn't the photos of the Lunar Lander site from the Indian Space Probe end this debate?


You would think so, but I still sense from this guy's signature (Zaiger): www.abovetopsecret.com...

And from other comments that nobody is impressed with the tiny little images only a few pixels wide of the LM in the landing sites whether the image is from India's craft or from NASA's LRO.

I don't find the images that impressive either but they are just as I'd expect and I already knew we went to the moon so I didn't need any images to prove it.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Facefirst
Didn't the photos of the Lunar Lander site from the Indian Space Probe end this debate?


You would think so, but I still sense from this guy's signature (Zaiger): www.abovetopsecret.com...

And from other comments that nobody is impressed with the tiny little images only a few pixels wide of the LM in the landing sites whether the image is from India's craft or from NASA's LRO.

I don't find the images that impressive either but they are just as I'd expect and I already knew we went to the moon so I didn't need any images to prove it.


I agree. The photos are not very impressive but like you, I believe we went.

And in the end, I'm going to trust the scientists(professionals) of another country (India) independently confirming NASA's claims rather than a bunch of armchair internet space experts.

And it makes no sense overall..... why would India, Russia and Japan lie about what they found on the moon to benefit the US? The US is unliked enough that I'm sure at least one of those countries would have loved to have debunked the US's moon landing claims.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Damn I was hoping some ATSer went to the book signing. Aldrin seems very tight lipped about it. If he knows anything about ET, he's not talking.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join