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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 100
377
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


OK...fortunately, I didn't have to hear that fingernails on the chalkboard voice of "JW"...

Do you honestly think that (yet another of the idiot's videos) shows anything of importance???

Mr. Aldrin wrote a book. He was, therefore, making himself readily available to most people who conctacted his representatives for interviews.

WHAT YOU SAW THERE is known as an "AMBUSH"!!

Poor, poor "Jarrah White" --- he either lives in a totally delusional world, or he IS THE CHARLATAN that some think. It is either/or, with him. Either he's is a moron, or he's a shyster.

(I don't know the Aussie versions, what are the slangs for douchebag?)

'Buzz" was not seeing any footage for the "first time"! WHO was that fat idiot, anyway??? Didn't look like Sibrel (but, I couldn't see him clearly...was it??)

The video exchange "proves" nothing, except that (Sibrel?) is also a douchebag...but, that isn't exactly news.

Ya know...about the only way to handle that is with contempt. Utter disgust, and revulsion. MAYBE, after hte anger subsides (because of the idiocy) a second thought might make one think, "Hmmm...maybe if I had just been able to laugh, and ridicule them with the proper zingers...."

BUT, like it usually happens, you only think of the good insults much later.

Timely, rapid witty quips only happen in TV and movie scripts. (OR, Robin Williams skits).

A gentleman, like Mr. Aldrin (who, in his day, was a TEST PILOT, for gawd's sakes!) has mellowed a lot, since his younger days. Aldrin, actually, was more of the intellectual, in a group of "jet jockeys" --- not prone to the same sorts of banter, and quick responses that some of his colleagues were.

Still...being shown such garbage, and understanding the intent? Would piss me off, royally too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW...speaking of being irked....WHERE is the OP, in all these pages??

Vamoosed, in abject embarrassment??? He/she should be held accountable for promoting this wanker ('JW')...however, based on teh flagging, still....maybe the OP actually, unintentionally, provided a service?

It backfired completely on the OP...and the true nature, the depths of ignorance displayed, by 'JW' have been completely revealed.




[edit on 10 June 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
'Buzz" was not seeing any footage for the "first time"! WHO was that fat idiot, anyway??? Didn't look like Sibrel (but, I couldn't see him clearly...was it??)


Yes, Buzz Aldrin was seeing this video for the first time ... look.
Which lends a lot of credence to the posts I made back a page.



edit: also weedwhacker, I don't know why you have to resort to calling someone fat to discredit them. Bit lame.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Yes, Buzz Aldrin was seeing this video for the first time ... look.


No...what he WAS seeing for the first time was the INANE "mockumentary"...you know, the one with the 'lovely' (although she sounds fat....
j/k) British woman narrating.... THAT piece of junk, totally baseless video?

The only proper resonse to it (Was it a clip from Sibrel's 'movie'?? The one that FOX TV showed, back in 2001?? Is THAT the one?? Because...if it is, hold on....)

Proper response to that load of garbage 'video' is
Only people lacking three or more neurons to rub together would view that, and not see it for the junk that it is.

Oh...is "chubby" better? Because, whoever that dude is, he's 'hefty'. It's a way to differentiate, and describe him, so people don't get confused as to WHOM I am referring.

If he had been skinny, or 'black', or asian, or whatever, then THAT would have been the descriptive term, as appropriate. Got it?? (If he had been a 'she', then that would have been sufficient, too).



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
We discussed this to some length in the thread we had on here years back which debunked everything in this one and more.
As no-one else can be bothered to read (beyond their skill set possibly?) I will attempt to find it myself when I get a moment.

I still remember that punch LOL! I'm not sure how anyone can think it's evidence somehow that Buzz was lying? If you were lying you'd keep a low profile and considering that this was not even the only or first time Sibrel was stalking him it's hardly unusual

I had the pleasure of congratulating Buzz for hitting that moron myself over dinner about 5 years ago which was a funny moment, you could tell he was pleased he got to give him what he deserved. Who wouldn't be?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Darn...I stopped watching at about 6:50, about when it looked like Buzz was getting up to leave...(I was worried that I'd hear "Jarrah White's" incredibly irritating voice next, so I bugged out quickly. Did it get better???)

More important, is it a continued "Jarrah White Free" Zone??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah hah!!! NOW it's in context!

See...all I've ever seen before, regarding the Buzz/Sibrel Match of the Century, was the final round. Just the clip, of the confrontation (with "bible") and the swing.

NOW it is so much more apparent, just HOW justified Buzz was!!!

AND...WHY, ppk, keep bringing this up. It's old!!

[edit on 10 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
If you don't have JW's you have Sibrel's so it's lose lose sadly...
But you get to see Buzz punch the guy one at the end, so thats worth it



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


The punch is right at the end of the video above. I'm more interested in how buzz reacts and almost admits he's been caught out earlier at about the 3 min mark.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Yes, Buzz Aldrin was seeing this video for the first time ... look.
Which lends a lot of credence to the posts I made back a page.



Buzz didn't hit him because of a video, he hit him because Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief." Of course, now Sibrel is a convicted criminal and Buzz is "dancin with the stars" in more ways than one.

BTW, Bart tried to press charges against the elderly man, but was laughed out of court.

Yes, there is cosmic justice.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Buzz didn't hit him because of a video


Yes we know, the topic being discussed is buzz's reaction to seeing the faked footage he was supposed to have filmed in the video above.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You really aren't getting it, are you? Serioulsy? You watch that exchange, and you get this?:


... buzz's reaction to seeing the faked footage he was supposed to have filmed...


Honest??

It's been explained, just above...OTHERS can watch it, and see clearly that his reaction is NOT from being shown the video, it's WHAT THE NARRATOR is saying! The idiotic lies, and misrepresentations!! Like I said, I would be mad, too. Initially speechless, unable to form the proper response to such outrage, and LIES!

Mr. Aldrin attempted to get away, and not act on his seething anger.

But, you saw what Sibrel did....he pushed, an dpushed, and got what was coming. He deserved it.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
He reacts like that because he's fed up with moron's acquiring his company under false pretenses just so they can peddle their un-scientific BS and sell the footage to suckers. Either directly or by using it to generate high volumes of traffic to websites -$$$$$$$$$$
I know he's fed up with it because he told me, so I don't have to rely on someone elses opinion thanks

How would you feel if you know you did something, it was one of humanities greatest achievements and you didn't even really get paid for it just to have some jumped up twerp trying to lead you so they can later misquote you?
I know the un-scientific sheeple hoax believers annoy me, so I can only imagine how they annoy him.
You see there's one thing I can't stand and that's stupidity - especially when you go to the trouble of educating someone only to have it thrown back into your face because your pesky 'facts' and 'science' get in the way of someones idea.
Yes yes, we all know how 'special' it makes someone feel to not believe in the Moon landings because the government did it and we don't like the government do we? No sir, anything the government does or says is automatically lies so we believe the opposite.
Well guess what, I'm not the government's biggest frikkin fan and these days hardly anyone is. But it doesn't mean you throw common sense and education out the window just to be a 'rebel' and 'different'.

The situation is so simple it astounds me people like Foos and co don't get it:

If the government were capable of faking this back then, imagine what they could do now... It would be EASY to manufacture some modern 'evidence' to support the moon landings took place and they certainly would not be publishing anything to contradict it which is what Foos and co like to think.
They could put an end to the conspiracy nonsense in a heartbeat but they don't and there are two possible reasons why this is the case:

1) Frankly people like JW are so insignificant they can't be bothered to make the effort
2) They want people to waste their time debating it as some sort of distraction or to discredit Conspiracy theories on the whole

From some of the things Buzz hinted at when I was talking to him I wouldn't be surprised if they were even hiding things about the mission, not that they didn't go but what exactly they may have seen. Don't read too much into that, but I certainly got the impression there was more to it. I can safely say I'm 100% sure they went though.
Problem is the lack of a decent level of education in schools due to the dumbing down by the authorities has bred even more of a different type of conspiracy theorist. One which has the right basic motivation but lacks common sense or any scientific ability to actually come to sensible conclusions.

It may come as a shock to some but quite a long time ago I believed for a while, after seeing a couple of videos a friend introduced me to, that the Moon landing may have been faked. It wasn't until I got the opportunity to meet Buzz that I decided to do as much research in detail as possible so I would be able to catch him out. I had nearly a year of preperation so I had plenty of time, but guess what? By the time I came to meet him I didn't bother trying to catch him out because after watching all the videos and reading all the HB sites and then researching everying myself independantly it became painfully obvious that the whole lot was written by morons for morons. Hoax perps are after one thing - $$$$$ and recognition by preying on the weak, gullible and uneducated, anyone that can't see that needs to open their eyes.

And if anyone starts whining that I'm making ad-hominem attacks, disgrace to ATS, boo hoo hoo, yada yada because it's just not fair that I label all HB in the same way then look in the mirror. Imagine how insulting it is to actually have a brain but end up with some whinging twerp like JW in your face trying to make out your thick for it while being followed by their lemmings.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Buzz didn't hit him because of a video


Yes we know, the topic being discussed is buzz's reaction to seeing the faked footage he was supposed to have filmed in the video above.


No, Buzz hit him just as Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief."

It could not be clearer.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
BTW, here is a devastating rebuttal to Sibrel's precious "forgotten footage".

A Response to Bart Sibrel's Films, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon and Astronaut Monkey Business

It actually looks at the blowups of the earth in the video and points out where you can compare the position of the continents and the cloud patterns, which match exactly to what you would expect for that time. Something they couldn't have know if they were faking it.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by torch2k

First, the blue haze appears not only on 6818 and 6826, but on all photos from 6813 to 6853, when the astronauts returned to the LM. Clearly you and the very estimable Doctor discount the possibility that Conrad and Bean took a swipe at the lens between EVAs.

Second, the haze is not centered on the astronauts or equipments, but on bright objects in the frame. Especially near the center of the frame. 6820 is a great example of this. The glow doesn't surround Bean, as one might expect from an electro-static effect, but does show up around the brighter portions of his suit where the sun is shining most strongly, suggesting an optical effect.

Third, the blue halo doesn't show up anywhere else in the Apollo photos. Could this be because all missions from Apollo 13 onward carried brushes to clean the camera lenses more frequently?

NASA says it's an optical phenomenon. If you intend to say that it's not, then tell me what it is, why it only shows up on a partial film magazine, and doesn't manifest itself in any other surface photography. And yes, I've read Demeo's article; his arguments are weak and specious at best.



Here is NASA's quote regarding the Blue and Red(?) glow or haze from the link you sent me:



118:18:09 Pete's First Pan at Middle Crescent Crater ( 382k )
Pete took this partial pan from the southeast rim of Middle Crescent just before he and Al headed back for the LM. The frames are AS12-46- 6836 to 6844. Note the strong colors at the center of the righthand frames. Examination of successive frames indicate that this related to the camera lens, *very likely* a dust smudge. Kipp Teague notes "The lens aberration begins at as12-46-6813. It's a blue glow around the astronaut in 6818, again in 6826, a discoloration in other frames, affecting clarity in most, and it's not gone again until 6853 (back in the LM). *Whatever the phenomenon is,* it has a varying impact on color based on the brightness of the central object in the image. On bright subjects, the aberration adds a blue cast, and on darker subjects, the aberration adds a reddish cast." I note that it also seems to vary with sun angle. Assembly by Dave Byrne.


Would you agree that NASA has not fully proven without a doubt what the 'phenomenon' (their words) is? I mean this is what I mean about scientific curiosity, where is it? Did they do tests to dismiss all other possibilities?

Tell me Torch2k, if somebody told you the moon had a blue glow or haze around it, what would you say?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

We are truly headed for a situation (at least in the United States) shown in the movie Idiocracy. IF something isn't done, soon.

www.imdb.com...


btw Idiocracy is great movie




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes I get it, technology goes in cycles, we dont know how the pyramids were built, but we know they were built.

But the difference between the Concorde and Apollo is that the Concorde was a natural progression of air travel. We still have supersonic jets being flown today. We still have commercial travel all over the world. Its logical, that those can once more be combined for supersonic commercial travel.



No, my friend. You missed the point entirely, while actually pointing at it no less

Are you trying to say that we dont know how concordes were built?

You say we have commercial flights
(We have the ISS & Shuttles & Soyuz, aka we have manned space exploration)

You say we have supersonic flight
(We have robot probes on the moon, mars, around jupiter, saturn, etc, etc)

Once we had both combined.
Now not anymore

You say we could combine those things again, if we wanted to.
I say: Yes, we could.

I also say we don't send people anymore because we can do it with robots now.



No, Im not saying that, Im saying the from wright brothers to the Concorde was a natural progression.

From landing a probe on the moon to landing a man on the moon, was not if you tell me that it all happened in the 1960's.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes I get it, technology goes in cycles, we dont know how the pyramids were built, but we know they were built.

But the difference between the Concorde and Apollo is that the Concorde was a natural progression of air travel. We still have supersonic jets being flown today. We still have commercial travel all over the world. Its logical, that those can once more be combined for supersonic commercial travel.



No, my friend. You missed the point entirely, while actually pointing at it no less

Are you trying to say that we dont know how concordes were built?

You say we have commercial flights
(We have the ISS & Shuttles & Soyuz, aka we have manned space exploration)

You say we have supersonic flight
(We have robot probes on the moon, mars, around jupiter, saturn, etc, etc)

Once we had both combined.
Now not anymore

You say we could combine those things again, if we wanted to.
I say: Yes, we could.

I also say we don't send people anymore because we can do it with robots now.



No, Im not saying that, Im saying the from wright brothers to the Concorde was a natural progression.

From landing a probe on the moon to landing a man on the moon, was not if you tell me that it all happened in the 1960's.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
As predictable as the sun rising in the East, Foos disappears and then returns with a complete change in subject.

Foos, we're still waiting on you explanation as to how the study you quoted (but tried to hide) supports your assertion that all the astronauts should have seen the same flashes. Then please tell us why NASA would not be able to tell what camera settings to use prior to the first landing? It's a simple question, and one that does have an answer.

post by Tomblvd



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 


And how do you render the CSM invisible to optical telescopes and Soviet radar while it's in orbit? A Romulan cloaking device?


[edit on 10-6-2010 by DJW001]


Soviets saw it on their radar?
Show me where they say that. And I mean in the 1960's and 70's.

but anyway,

nobody needs to be in the CM. Nobody is really disputing that we cant send objects to the moon, just that we cant send people.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
As predictable as the sun rising in the East, Foos disappears and then returns with a complete change in subject.

Foos, we're still waiting on you explanation as to how the study you quoted (but tried to hide) supports your assertion that all the astronauts should have seen the same flashes. Then please tell us why NASA would not be able to tell what camera settings to use prior to the first landing? It's a simple question, and one that does have an answer.

post by Tomblvd


Tom, we cant play together because you keep moving the goal posts.
So your just going to have to find someone else to play with, or just play with yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join