Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

Also as you keep on about the landings being fake how do you feel about people like John Lear and Dick Hoagland saying they DID land but didn't go back because they found things!

Those guys think they landed but I dont agree with anything else they claim.

I covered this extensively in earlier posts.
Bottom line it was all faked.
There were no manned lunar landings.

As a matter of fact, my theory is the same power structure behind the advent of the Apolllo space program was behind the Kennedy assassination.
I will get into this in a later post when I have some time.

reply to post by FoosM




No you haven't!!!:

I covered this extensively in earlier posts.

You have been barely intelligible. Willfully ignorant. And incredibly arrogant. ALL without any merit.

Bottom line it was all faked.

And, you have FAILED at every opportunity to submit any proof. You have ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Only a raving imbecile would take what drivel you have offered up and accept it without question.

There were no manned lunar landings.

As before...the IGNORANCE...it





[edit on 23 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by FoosM

You are absolutely right, why bring something up that has already been debunked by JW. If you have something to counter his claims with then do so. Peruse his videos before posting, he has covered a lot that you may consider as evidence. And at least offer a REAL counter argument since this thread is about his video series. And not those silly excuses people make like, "I dont like his voice"

So you're calling JAXA liars now? Jarra White is a coward who defames people and refuses to defend himself in person. That's not a lame excuse, that's an admission that he knows he's wrong. Please refute in your own words the evidence from JAXA. Indicate exactly how they faked their images. More importantly explain why. Were they bribed? Please provide a videotape of the secret meeting or a record of the secret bank transfers. Why do you not understand that the way you present your thesis always sets you an unattainable burden of proof?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ppk55

 

You are really a puzzle, ppk...

I had no idea they showed a simulation during the apollo landing. Every second that ticked by, I thought, no ... no .. they didn't really show this. Amazing.

Do you really think (as FoosM so FOOLISHLY seems to believe) that people watching back then were THAT STUPID??

Do you think people didn't realize, when the words "SIMULATION" and "ANIMATION" kept flashing on the screen that they were seeing...simulations and animations???

Not stupid, simply not aware of the power of television.
Not critical when the messenger was so trusted like Cronkite.
Cronkite wouldnt lie...

How prominent was TV back in the 60's?
For a lot of people it was still new and powerful medium to get used to

Our ability to remember accurately is not as reliable as we think it is. We are often unaware that our memories change which causes us to change the story from what really happened. We often forget the importance of the factors that can skew our memory and perception. Unfortunately we think factors such as confidence and details are more important and reliable when in fact these factors cause errors in decision making.

add news to it:

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

what we see (via television) enters directly into our minds with hardly any chance of being questioned, while what we read has to be analysed (at least to the level of deciphering what the words mean) before it can be assimilated.

When you watch TV, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. In fact, experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body's natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles, strenuous exercise, and orgasm. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.

Apollo was great experiment in mind control

reply to post by FoosM

Apollo was great experiment in mind control

Prove it. Provide a photocopy of the original experimental protocol. Under which auspices was it conducted? Provide a flow chart indicating which agencies were responsible for each aspect of the experiment and name the individuals responsible. Describe the exact nature of the liaison between the government and the privately owned media. Wire-tapped conversations are permitted, provided they can be properly sourced. Please provide a copy of the final report of this experiment.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You realized... I was being honest with a tone of sarcasm right? Yes, I've read this entire thread and I see 2 things.... Skeptic vs. Believer... both have VALID points, personally I'm open to hear suggestions, but when it's divided I lean towards my inner self.... and my own belief....

as I mentioned above, why is it so hard to "assume" this was faked... why so much patriotism over this? I like to see an skeptic to put on the believers shoe and try to understand what it is they're saying.... put all the ego aside (I know better crap) and just see it from outside of the box!

There is soooooo much political agenda behind the moon landing that we prob. both are WAYYYYY OFF in what we think really happened. In situations like this, I tend to lean on my own experiences and look at our history....

IF the government tells you something to be true..... it most likely is NOT!

reply to post by FoosM


The link to your images not working for me... also keep in mind CBS was the main TV station that covered the NASA (if not the only channel). The images that I saw before were of a REAL / FULL size shuttle and stage was huge.... the vans with camera crew had the CBS logo (I remember, because of the eye logo)... anyhow could they have been bought out by the government to fake all this with a small crew?! hell ya.... to gain peoples emotions and with emotions people are bound to their patriotism.

let see few more examples of government doing this... do you remember this photo.... off course we do, it's in all our text books and how the Americans save the day...

www.archives.gov...

well that's wrong, this was staged... in fact the war was still on and they ended up re taking this shot multiple times to make it look "patriotic" they then used this photo to gain peoples emotions and with that they were able to get there support for more funding for war! Yet to this day many claim this photo was an action photo!

Do you recall the radio host back in the 70s told the people the Mars marshals are invading... even though they said it was a prank... people panicked all around the country thinking they were being invaded....

MEDIA is a very powerful tool to gain peoples emotions and with that, they control human mind, so even though USA was incapable of sending a missile in to space successfully they somehow managed to land on the moon... film it almost perfectly... with very limited shots looking outwards (makes you wonder... do you film yourself... when you're on a new planet... or film around you and outside to see what you can get?!)... with cameras following all the movement from outside with perfect planning?! With no crater showing under the landing... never mentioned moon has color as you get close to them.. till we recently discovered this? They couldn't bring back enough rock/soil to find out there was water in it?! They haven't gone back in decades ?!?! give me a break..... if you want to believe this is real then so bit... be ignorant... if you want to see the truth ... well truth hurts.... !

[edit on 23-6-2010 by freighttrain]

reply to post by wmd_2008


When I was studying Criminology back in the day, we learned something very interesting... human mind can take control over what your eyes can observe, this can be done few methods... either use subconscious mind by hypnotizing an individual... use '___' (like substances) and play certain phrases/videos to implant thoughts and suggestions.

Keep in mind at the time CIA was involved heavily with mind control and I can't help but to think these people REALLY believe they did go to the moon, and this could have easily been implanted during their training phases at NASA.

Personally I believe Buzz knows this but is in denial about it.... few others accepted this as how it was and decades of convincing themselves now they believe it... even if they didn't, do you think they would come out now and tell the public that I was just an actor playing my part for the better of our country?! Do you know how people will react... this will never happen.

So is it plausible that they "think" they really did go to the moon? Yes... you mind can play trick on you, if your life dependent on it!

Freighttrain ...
A shuttle? On the Moon? Yeah... thats propably faked
The war wasn't over with raising the flag on Iwo Jima? My, who would have thought, besides everybody ever reading an introductory history book.
Radio in the 70ies? War of the Worlds? 30ies my friend, 30ies.

Foos and Komodo, I'm still waiting for your responses concerning the invention of the laser and its usage to measure the earth-moon distance.

In your own words please.

If not, please retract your statements.

reply to post by freighttrain


Oh, boy...with this sort of world-view paradigm, how to begin?.....

Skeptic vs. Believer... both have VALID points...

For clarity's sake...when you say "Skeptic" you mean a Moon Landing "hoax believer"? Is that correct?

Because, THAT IS THE ONLY 'BELIEF' going on here.

The Apollo missions are an IRREFUTABLE FACT. Period. Clowns like "Jarrah White", and all his forebears (who he merely steals from, and elaborates and embellishes their same old tired already disproven claims, anyway) have been thrown down, and shown up so many times, it is a joke at this point, and a wonder that this NONSENSE still continues.

The overwhelming and undeniable evidence shows anyone with half a brain what sort of charlatans spread the "landing hoax" BS...the only question to ask is "Why?" Why do they do this??

Well, turns out, there happens to be a little incentive, and those who stumble into an arena such as this, where they are able to BANBOOZLE enough gullible people on YouTube, discover that, after a while, IF they stay 'popular' on YT, with plenty of hits, YT 'comes-a-callin' with offers of $$$$$$$.

So THAT is the incentive, pure and simple.

What is sad, and is very likely (and I'm only now beginning to learn the details of how the YouTube advertising profit motive works, for prodigious posters) that ALL OF THIS THREAD ACTIVITY, here on ATS, is likely generating even more 'traffic' to scam artists like "Jarrah White", and his cohorts (I know of at least one in England, and the other I don't know the country of origin).


~~~~~~~
[[[I am putting out, here, a general request to ANYONE who knows more about the workings of YouTube in this regard, to make any information known. And, what actions can be taken to stop such egregious hoaxing, and disinformation that is being spread by these people; who I will categorize as very close, in conduct, to being "criminals" --- disseminating FALSE information and innuendo for profit? Not sure if it's criminal, but some aspect of it is certainly immoral.]]]
~~~~~~~


Now, to continue with freighttrain:

... why so much patriotism over this?

This has NOTHING to do with "patriotism"!!!

Let me repeat this: NOTHING ABOUT 'PATRIOTISM'!!!!

It is about SCIENCE, and knowledge, and, as pointed out above....charlatans and their chicanery.

And foremost, denying ignorance. These punks (forgive me, but with the exception of two of the hoaxing 'Grandaddies', Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene' --- both nutcases, BTW --- the majority of this "hoax" mantle has been picked up and carried by kids of a generation that weren't yet a dream in their father's testicles when the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions were in full swing).

"Patriotism"??? Entirely laughable, as you will see when you realize the multitude of people from all over the planet who scoff at the "hoax" pretenders....now, I certainly didn't coin this term, so don't beat ME for it, I'm just the messenger...but a very apt term to describe some of them is --- "hoaxtards". (Sorry if that offends...it's out there already, probably in an Urban Dictionary somewhere, too...)

Now...this is a fallacy, in that it has been overblown:

There is soooooo much political agenda behind the moon landing...

I suggest some reading, don't have to provide specfic references, one can search for oneself. Most useful are the actual memoirs of those involved, and their recollections of the era, and what transpired.

Would be GOOD to seek out some books written by the COSMONAUTS, too!! Since the Cold War ended, some (those that still lived after the Soviet space failures) have a lot of insight to add.

Finally...this is just stupid:

IF the government tells you something to be true..... it most likely is NOT!

Such a generalized, over-arching and sweeping statement reflects a profound ignorance, and knee-jerk stance that is not useful.

In any event, it is NOT ONLY the United States Government that substantiates Apollo, and the rest!!! THAT is yet another strawman that the "hoaxers" erect, in order to continue spewing their filfth and dreck...


[edit on 23 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by debunky


You missed the point of what I was trying to say.... Government will FAKE anything to get their agenda, which is political power!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Good points.. but you do realize that all this started long before internet was even publicized and YT and etc... became the big sensation as source of information! Even though I don't understand the hate behind YT... sure lot of fake stuff up there... people expressing opinions... some for profit, some for glory (as big as it maybe for some)! YT is a TOOL that PEOPLE not just government agencies can express opinions... so I have nothing against it! People need to do their own research and come up with their OWN belief.

That being said... I like someone to post ALL the GREAT things governments around the world (not just USA, we all know much about that...) has done in the last few decades that were for the BENEFIT of the people... on the other hand, I like to see all the BAD things they have done to us... for purely their own interest.

I'm not talking about the average Joe that works for the government, i'm talking about the power behind the scene controlling the government and their agenda?!

Proponents of the view that the Moon landings were faked give several differing theories about the motivation for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings. Cold War prestige, monetary gain and providing a distraction are some of the more notable motives which are given. The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon would be risky and expensive, as exemplified by John F. Kennedy famously stating that the U.S. chose to go because it was hard.[18] Proponents also claim that the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam War; and so lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.[19] Bill Kaysing maintains that, despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake the Moon landing, thereby guaranteeing success, than for the U.S. to actually go there. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.017%.[20] NASA raised approximately US$ 30 billion in order to go to the Moon as well, and Kaysing claims that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.[21] The issue of delivering on the promise is often brought up as well. Since most proponents believe that the technical issues involved in getting people to the Moon either were insurmountable at the time or remain insurmountable, the Moon landings had to be faked in order to fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."[18] Others have made the claim that, with all the known and unknown hazards of traveling into deep space,[22] NASA would not have risked the public humiliation of astronauts crashing to their deaths on the lunar surface, broadcast on live TV. So, with time running out, instead of risking a national fiasco and embarrassment and a cut-off of funding of billions of dollars should some catastrophe happen, it's argued that NASA had to stage and fake the moon landing to avoid such a major risk.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

just to name few reasons as of to WHY they would FAKE it... makes sense to me...

ONE of my own question still remains with no logical answer...

Why did we send so many so called moon landings (the motive being, curious about the moon and it's structure) in the 70s to study the moon... and somehow didn't know we have "water" crystals in the surface... or .. how moon actually has "color" and looks gray from Earth... and so many other NEW discoveries made possible by all these probes we send there... yet we have NOT gone back for decades and landed a man there?!

It makes no sense.. spend s#$@ load of money that we don't have... to make probes... send them up there to do some very basic analysis, which if there was a man on surface can easily accomplish plus more, even though our technology has advanced enormously over the last decades... I don't get the logic behind this.. other then few reasons..

One; Even today... we are not able to land a man on the moon or any other planets/moons, etc..! Sure sounds stupid because we're already capable of going to orbit and build a station there.. but maybe landing a man on the moon is much more difficult and yet we have not mastered it... specially since 1/3 of our probes don't even make it safely to the target, yet we managed right off the bad send man to the moon multiple times?!

Two: Faking moon landing will be too difficult with todays technology and so attempt to faking it, will be easily exposed by the public with all the media tools available now

Three; A little far fetched, but we are NOT allowed to go the moon based because of our ET friends on the dark side of the moon (which opens another can of warm)

[edit on 23-6-2010 by freighttrain]

reply to post by Tomblvd


lmao Only people like you would he be considered an out-right-liar. He has a lot of facts and research. I bet you never watched 'em? I bet you also work for the air force. So do they think they are undefeated with their cyberwar?

LOL at the constellation program!!!!!

reply to post by freighttrain


I noticed so far how Americans work is that if you want to get ahead you have to cheat the system. I see it all the time and that is how you get ahead. Of course I am an American and now finally realize this and with evidence.

twenty years or more not going back to the moon. LOL

Yet, we had that constellation program and spent billions. Yet we didn't even have a moon lander design ready and we were still using the same old apollo rocket technology. LOL

The Japanese are our only hope right now. I know they won't cheat the system.

GO JAXA!

reply to post by dragnet53

He has a lot of facts and research.

No, he does not. Have you read the previous 118 pages? He misunderstands the most basic, common sense, common knowledge principles, such as simple perspective. He takes statements out of context and makes it difficult to find their source. He performs meaningless uncontrolled "experiments." And he slanders people. Even the "experts" he quotes would probably be outraged by the interpretations he places on their statements. He clearly does not know the difference between evidence and hearsay. He resorts to "body language interpretation" when the surface text contradicts his unfounded beliefs. JW needs to take courses in logic, analysis and debate before he embarrasses himself further.

Originally posted by freighttrain

ONE of my own question still remains with no logical answer...

Why did we send so many so called moon landings (the motive being, curious about the moon and it's structure) in the 70s to study the moon... and somehow didn't know we have "water" crystals in the surface...

The vast majority of water on the moon is either at the poles or deep in the bottom of large craters. Both areas we did not visit.

Which brings up another question. Why indeed send so many missions if you are faking them? It is a certainty that every fake only adds to the possibility of being discovered. It makes absolutely no sense at all to do it more than once.

or .. how moon actually has "color" and looks gray from Earth... and so many other NEW discoveries made possible by all these probes we send there...

Which new discoveries are you talking about?

yet we have NOT gone back for decades and landed a man there?!

Every time it is proposed, the money is withdrawn. It is a dollar-intensive endeavor, and it is too easy for a politician to cut funding from NASA.

It makes no sense.. spend s#$@ load of money that we don't have... to make probes... send them up there to do some very basic analysis, which if there was a man on surface can easily accomplish plus more, even though our technology has advanced enormously over the last decades... I don't get the logic behind this.. other then few reasons..

It will cost much, much more to send a manned misson to the moon than the unmanned probes that have already been sent. There is a very vocal and politcally powerful group of scientists inside and out of NASA that think we should do away with manned missions completely in favor of unmanned probes.

Mars pathfinder cost around $150 million while a manned mission to the moon would be in the area of $100 BILLION. The math isn't that hard.

One; Even today... we are not able to land a man on the moon or any other planets/moons, etc..! Sure sounds stupid because we're already capable of going to orbit and build a station there.. but maybe landing a man on the moon is much more difficult and yet we have not mastered it... specially since 1/3 of our probes don't even make it safely to the target, yet we managed right off the bad send man to the moon multiple times?!

What do you mean "right off the bat"?

Two: Faking moon landing will be too difficult with todays technology and so attempt to faking it, will be easily exposed by the public with all the media tools available now

One would think that with all the CGI and supercomputers, faking a mission would be much easier. But then again I know that with all the intricacies of a mission, faking it is impossible.

Three; A little far fetched, but we are NOT allowed to go the moon based because of our ET friends on the dark side of the moon (which opens another can of warm)

Who are "we"? Because there are a lot of "wes" that have seen the back side of the moon....

reply to post by freighttrain


Based on your response, it seems that the most ridiculous nonsense that is the mantra of many "hoax" believers has influenced your (I assume in most other things, normally rational thinking), so let's look at them:

One; Even today... we are not able to land a man on the moon or any other planets/moons, etc..!

INCORRECT! Well, with this caveat --- the equipment does not currently exist, of course, because it hasn't been built. See if you can guess WHY?

HOWEVER, the capability is there, certainly. Always has been. It's the WILLINGNESS to spend the $$$ and/or Euros that is at the root, here.


Now...is this just a lot of hot air, and hyperbole, or do you have EXACT citations to substantiate this claim?:

... specially since 1/3 of our probes don't even make it safely to the target...

IF you are referring to, what? Let me guess, the two UNMANNED probes to Mars that failed?? Is that it? (Off the top of my head, there...referring to most recent US missions I thought of...so, went to check more data):

Mars Curse
The high failure rate of missions launched from Earth attempting to explore Mars has become informally known as the "Mars Curse". The "Galactic Ghoul" is a fictional space monster that consumes Mars probes, a term coined in 1997 by Time Magazine journalist Donald Neff.

Of 38 launches from Earth in an attempt to reach the planet, only 19 succeeded, a success rate of 50%. Twelve of the missions included attempts to land on the surface, but only seven transmitted data after landing.

The majority of the failed missions occurred in the early years of space exploration and were part of the Soviet and later Russian Mars probe program that suffered several technical difficulties, other than the largely successful Venera program for the exploration of Venus.

Modern missions have an improved success rate; however, the challenge, complexity and length of the missions make it inevitable that failures will occur.

The U.S. NASA Mars exploration program has had a somewhat better record of success in Mars exploration, achieving success in 13 out of 20 missions launched (a 65% success rate), and succeeding in six out of seven (an 86% success rate) of the launches of Mars landers.

en.wikipedia.org...


What is it with these deniers, anyway??? Ignoring all the successes, forgetting about them, then exagerrating the failures?

Ya know...ONE Martian mission failed for a very, very stupid reason...engineers here, in design and calculation phase, mixed up the units they were using...either because of poor communication and supervision, or just dumb luck Human error.

Another to Mars was lost, and the reason is unknown. It could have struck something, some debris, or simply suffered some sort of equipment failure. They can't build redundancy into EVERY component, they have to compromise under the imposed budget constraints.

(Jeeze, people...pick up an issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology once in a while, and READ...you will learn a lot about what's happening currently, in aerospace fields).

Still, it seems that you are failing to grasp the significance of having a MANNED spacecraft!!! (AND, you need a remedial history lesson, to boot):

.... yet we managed right off the bad send man to the moon multiple times?!

No, it wasn't "right off the bat"! (Again with the junk the "hoax" deniers spew out....)?

Check your history of manned spaceflight. I shan't waste bandwidth here, it's available if you JUST LOOK!

And, BTW...see above: The presence of the Human onboard increases the chances that the mission will succeed, since a Human can be there to troubleshoot. The downside of manned spaceflight, though, is the requirement FOR the Human...life support, for instance. AND, for added safety, even more redundancy than would be needed on the unmanned craft.

ADDING components ADDS weight...and weight is the biggest obstacle, overall, given our current state of propulsion technology.

Two: Faking moon landing will be too difficult with todays technology and so attempt to faking it, will be easily exposed by the public with all the media tools available now

Huh? Specious argument, since even FORTY years ago, it would have been impossible to "fake" it...to suggest that it would shows a complete lack of understanding, and perhaps too great a reliance on 'today's' technology...the 1960s were not some 'stone-age' era, you know....


Now....THIS next bit, I will leave for the "Aliens and UFOs" forum crowd.

Except to say....'perhaps' the seeds of this particular notion were sown by the surprising encounter of something (and you can speculate 'til the cows come home about that, in the UFO forum) BUT ---

Three; A little far fetched, but we are NOT allowed to go the moon based because of our ET friends on the dark side of the moon (which opens another can of warm)

--- I would be greatly, greatly surprised if it turned out that we were "told" not to go back!! That is rather silly, really...when you think about it.

Just think it through, and you might see why.....



[edit on 23 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Tomblvd
Foos and Komodo, I'm still waiting for your responses concerning the invention of the laser and its usage to measure the earth-moon distance.

In your own words please.

If not, please retract your statements.

retract what statement?

Originally posted by FoosM
reply to post by FoosM

 

As a matter of fact, my theory is the same power structure behind the advent of the Apolllo space program was behind the Kennedy assassination.
I will get into this in a later post when I have some time.

Foos......yes, yah hit the nail on the head with this one. Buts alas...topic for another post! Can't wait for it, your post!