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.

 

What is with the trust of NASA?

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
"these hoax claims and taking them at face-value without doing any investigation on their own"


I'm not you, what evidence have you debunked? Enlighten me please...
and for the people staring you, debunk the fact that NASA LIED about global warming statistics and the fact that their is life in the universe let alone our own galaxy...This debate goes further than the "moon mission" or the "hey look russia we got you by the **** now" this is about NASA's lies and they have....I cannot say I have definitive proof of the moon landing being fraudulent but the evidence is there.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
debunk the fact that NASA LIED about global warming statistics
Of all your claims so far in this thread, that's the first one I've seen that may have a shred of truth behind it.


..I cannot say I have definitive proof of the moon landing being fraudulent but the evidence is there.
You mean like evidence that 2 shadows on uneven terrain aren't parallel? Yes there's evidence and none of it holds up to scrutiny.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
More than a shred...
.
.
.
So geometry doesn't hold up to scrutiny?


[edit on 30-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
More than a shred...
So geometry doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

Scientific geometry does, pseudoscientific geometry doesn't.

And this is why I say a shred:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.


So was it a "lie" as you claim, or was it an error?


The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.


Since they carried over the previous months data, I can't rule out an error, but I agree some data was wrong. At root of whether it's a lie or not is whether the error was intentional or unintentional. I don't really have any proof it was intentional, do you?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
The carbon tax is the tool to fund the global governance NASA is a government run agency piece together the sick puzzle and you'll figure it out...


"pseudoscientific geometry doesn't." not sure I'm understanding geometry is geometry.





[edit on 30-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by -Blackout-
I *never* trust a word NASA says, ever. They are holding too many secrets and withholding way too much information from the public.

IMO they are part of the whole ET/UFO cover-up conspiracy.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by -Blackout-]


Way to go Blackout..............................

You are right on the money, I'm reading Richard C. Hoagland' "Dark Mission" at the moment for the second time, and he has no doubt that there has been a cover up, of monumental proportions, regarding the ET/UFO issue.

See my signature below....................nuff said



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
When it comes to Nibiru, there is no need to trust in NASA, there is enough data that comes from non-NASA and non-gov sites. Unless you consider any and all higher learning facilities with an astronomy department worth its salt part of the conspiracy. There's also lots of really smart and observationaly skilled amateurs.

The same is with the moon-story; no need to believe NASA when there is enough other independant confirmation by now.

As far as E.T.'s go, who else are you gonna get your data from but from gov agencies? That doesn't mean that you have to trust them.

So far I have no reason to disregard NASA's data completely - apart from the odd Nazi or Wannabe Sorcerer who were or are part of that organization. I guess there are plenty of circumstances where they would lie, but that doesn't mean that they did.

I've never came around so blatant a lie from Nasa that I would disregard them completely. But of course all data needs contextualization and independent confirmation.

I just can't buy into the "every word they say is a lie" mentality. Not anymore, anyways.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 
Not everything is a lie and I don't have that mentality...The important things are though...I mean everything the government says is lies/propaganda...Wars without the people's consent, false flag "terror" attacks, global warming is a hoax...The globe is actually cooling.....Back room deals, makin money out of nothing, prescott bush funding the nazi's, IBM tagging the jews....So if NASA is run by the fraud then what can you make of their information?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 
Not everything is a lie and I don't have that mentality...The important things are though...I mean everything the government says is lies/propaganda


Isn't that a contradiction? That was what I said: I don't buy into this kind of mentality. Every data needs to be looked at in a critical way; I tried to point that out. Soime official data is trustworthy, some is not.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 
Not really I just was using your view or take (Because it was a good one) and looking at the big picture, we got into this discussion of the moon landing.
Maybe we can get a broader view...



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Circular argument eh? Yeah the same person who knows the actions of william cooper is tellin me this?


How fundamentally idiotic. My thoughts on William Cooper do not change the fact your lazy, unthinking opinion of NASA is based entirely on circular logic.

But if you want to go down that road, we can. The opinion of anyone who makes a hero out of a belligerent drunkard with a known history of violence and harassment, and celebrates the fact they shot a cop, is not worth crap. And you prove that with every ignorant post you made in this thread.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Like I said, the evidence is there, DEBUNK IT.


Debunk what? You have presented nothing to debunk. All you do is make mention of claims with no evidence to support those claims and when pressed to present said evidence, you refuse, saying you will not do research for other people.

Further, you are the one making the claim, therefore the onus is on you to prove your claims not on anyone else to debunk or prove them for you. Burden of proof. Educate yourself. Though I doubt you will make any attempt to remove your . from the pigs trough of ignorance you have it buried in.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 
Haha got rid of mosdef eh? That's good...This is the definition of what you call ********* You say he shot a cop and where are you getting this info? The media? The cop's word? He was a threat that was takin out on his front porch in his PJ's...You seem to have a hard time deciphering lies and fiction...


I presented evidence but you didn't look, of course not...




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
"pseudoscientific geometry doesn't." not sure I'm understanding geometry is geometry.


In scientific geometry, shadows on uneven surfaces won't be parallel. In pseudoscientific geometry, they will be parallel. The latter is the version used in the moon landing hoax claims.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Haha got rid of mosdef eh? That's good...This is the definition of what you call *********


By all means, tell us what ignorant or racist statement you were going to make. Don't hide behind asterisks. Have the courage of your convictions.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
You say he shot a cop and where are you getting this info? The media? The cop's word? He was a threat that was takin out on his front porch in his PJ's...


The record shows he was not on his porch, was in fact confronting who he thought were trespassers on his property (as he had done in the past) and that he shot a cop. If you have evidence that none of those are true, then present it.

So what if this information came from a cop or the media or any other source? Whenever a counter-argument or facts are presented, you have never once told us why the facts are wrong, only dismissed the source. Dismissing information simply because of the source is the height of both ignorance and arrogance, traits you are found of displaying.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
You seem to have a hard time deciphering lies and fiction...


Rich. Again, if you have facts to support your ignorance, please, let us see it.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
I presented evidence but you didn't look, of course not...


When and where have you presented evidence? It should be a very simple matter of posting the links to your own posts when you have presented evidence. Instead, when pressed for evidence, you simply refuse.

Either you are a terrible liar or suffer a complete lack of self-aware to think you have presented any sort of evidence.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
"pseudoscientific geometry doesn't." not sure I'm understanding geometry is geometry.


In scientific geometry, shadows on uneven surfaces won't be parallel. In pseudoscientific geometry, they will be parallel. The latter is the version used in the moon landing hoax claims.

And it's not only the uneven surfaces on the Moon that caused the nonparallel shadows. Some of the nonparallel shadows are caused by perceptive and the wide-angle lenses used on the Apollo cameras.

Here's and example of a wide-angle lens and perspective causing non-parallel shadows. In this example, the shadows to the right and left of the photographers' shadow were actually beside an in line with the photographer, but because of the wide-angle of the shot, the objects casting the other shadows (especially the objects that cast the shadows on the right) look as if they are in a spot further forward than the photographer:



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 
The word is ignorance if you can spell...That ladies and gentlemen is making a radical assumption, Seems like I've rattled your cage (meaning literal) the cage that confines you from any kind of truth...I did post a link but your job is to find where I am and spout off ********* that's it....Nothing more and nothing less....



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
That doesn't count if the "astronauts" shadows were on the opposite side of where they should have been...




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
That doesn't count if the "astronauts" shadows were on the opposite side of where they should have been...

Can you tell me the photo number you are talking about?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
 
The word is ignorance if you can spell...


Except I didn't misspell it.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
That ladies and gentlemen is making a radical assumption, Seems like I've rattled your cage (meaning literal) the cage that confines you from any kind of truth...


You are delusional if you think anything you are saying has rattled anyone's cage. Of course, every post you make demonstrates just how delusional and ignorant you are.


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
I did post a link but your job is to find where I am and spout off ********* that's it....Nothing more and nothing less....


Again, you talk about spelling, you make racist comments about people's avatars, but you never back up what you are saying. The same red-herring tactics as always.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
NWOWILLFALL --

I have one simple question -- why does it seem you believe what you read without verification?

This seems to be a very dangerous trait to have. You seem to follow these moon hoax websites like a sheep without asking any important questions. How could you ever tell if the belief you seem to be blindly following is an accurate one?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join