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: 120
377
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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?


Do you want to explain yourself?




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


I dont have to, I the results speak for themselves.
Apollo was a lie yet you and many others believe it ergo mind control.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
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!


more recently:




On May 1, 2003, Bush became the first sitting President to make an arrested landing in a fixed-wing aircraft on an aircraft carrier[1][2] when he arrived at the USS Abraham Lincoln in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, dubbed Navy One, as the carrier returned from combat operations in the Persian Gulf. He posed for photographs with pilots and members of the ship's crew while wearing a flight suit. A few hours later, he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq War. Far above him was the warship's banner stating "Mission Accomplished."
Bush's historic jet landing on the carrier was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. For instance, they pointed to the fact that the carrier was well within range of Bush's helicopter, and that a jet landing was not needed.[3] Originally the White House had stated that the carrier was too far off the California coast for a helicopter landing and a jet would be needed to reach it. On the day of the speech, the Lincoln was only 30 miles (48 km) from shore but the administration still decided to go ahead with the jet landing. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer admitted that Bush "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing."[4] The Lincoln made a scheduled stop in Pearl Harbor shortly before the speech, docked in San Diego after the speech, and returned to her home port in Everett, Washington on May 6, 2003.
S-3B Viking "Navy One" at the National Museum of Naval Aviation

The S-3 that served as "Navy One" was retired from service and placed on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida on July 17, 2003. The museum makes it clear that Bush was a passenger — not the pilot — of the plane.[5] Unlike his father, who was a Navy pilot, George W. Bush was never trained to land on a carrier.

The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."[6]

The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN, "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."[7] According to John Dickerson of Time magazine, the White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crew members.[8]




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont have to, I the results speak for themselves.
Apollo was a lie yet you and many others believe it ergo mind control.


Correction: you simply can't. If you have an alternative theory that explains a given outcome, you must provide evidence that it is the only possible explanation... otherwise Occam's razor favors the simplest possible explanation. You have yet to provide any credible evidence that Apollo was a "lie." And you have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was an orchestrated program of mind control.

Pro Apollo:
Physical evidence
a)Geological samples unlike those found on Earth
b)Telemetry data on tape and paper
c)The physical remains of spacecraft, permitting them to be tested
Primary Documentation
a)Detailed first person accounts from hundreds of thousands of people
b)Detailed administrative records
c)Detailed photographic evidence
d)Endless secondary sources
e)Endless amounts of consistent data

Contra Apollo:
Physical Evidence
a)NONE
Primary Documentation:
a)NONE

Your statement is not a fact, it is a baseless accusation. Find some evidence before you shoot your mouth off. Please read my earlier post about methodology... you know, the one about the "Bosworth Field Hoax." You persist in acting like Mr. A.

PS: Talk about circular reasoning!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


:shk:
:shk:

This post (everyone who's interested can merely follow the link to view it) made by FoosM is beyond comprehension, and seems to have no relevance.

Why those particular bits were highlighted and emphasized is beyond understanding, IF the intent was to make a case for the Apollo "hoax".

A statue that commemorates the capture of Iwo Jima, in World War II?
Somehow significant, how again?

(Do people wish to argue that a 'statue' that is representative of an event MUST be exactly perfect, to exactly depict the event? Wow, that's quite a stretch, better check every statue ever erected all over the world, throughout history).

Second part, about Bush and his stunt...it was a STUNT! Public Relations, one-off stunt! We knew it at the time, immediately!! AND, it completely and utterly backfired on the Bush administration!!!

Trying to tie this in with Apollo, and the fantasy of a "hoax", is incredibly desperate, it seems...or it shows the lack of comprehension in the first place that's been exhibited within this thread. I vote for the latter.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
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!




Well lets see from the start I am not American so that knocks the patriot bit out.

Lets look at some of the reason given that it was faked.

The now classic NO stars in MOON pictures the hoaxers claimed that as evidence because they had no skill in photography.

The Flag waving on the MOON only time it waved was when an Astronaut had been holding the flag!

The No blast crater under LANDER that was explained with all the physics shown.

Someone was on the MOON to take video of Armstrong leaving the Lander
video camera was on a boom that was swung out from lander.

Someons took video of the Astronauts leaving the Moon becuase the camera followed the craft up. It was remote controlled.

Now we have evidence like this

dogsounds.files.wordpress.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The other thing if it was faked they would KNOW at some point other countries would have missions to the Moon at some point to map or photograph it so they would be caught.

Also both Russia and China were watching them DO you honestly think if China could have proved it was faked they would have said NOTHING they would have used that to prove a point to their people and get one over the USA.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


They still think JAXA believed America landed on the moon. LOL

They half-ass believed them.


jra

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
They still think JAXA believed America landed on the moon. LOL

They half-ass believed them.


Would you care to elaborate on this? In what way does JAXA not believe or "half-ass" believed that the US landed on the Moon?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


It is pointless to argue with idiots.

ONLY reason, initially, for responding in this thread was to make certain that true, factual information was presented by those who know, in order to counter the garbage and nonsense spouted by the "hoaxers".

That way all who dip in to lurk and read will see the record set right.

If it managed to save even ONE person from falling into the "hoaxer's" trap of swirling and utter ignorance, then it has served a purpose.

Colateral "damage" seems to be indicated, though, by the incredibly large numbers of 'stars' and 'flags' on the OP's post. This can mean two things:

Either there are far, far more ill-informed people out there, which is a terrible thing to consider, if true;

OR, those who did stop by to read were encouraged by, and left educated with, the cogent responses presented, by ALL who contributed with the unassailable facts, and completely smeared the "hoax" nonsense off the board.

I earnestly hope for the latter......


Back to WHY it's pointless to argue with the idiots? (For, alas, they will always be there, somewhere, somewhen...)...the sort of folk, here, that have shown their lack of comprehension, or just willful ignorance, will ALWAYS twist and turn, and confuse reality in order to keep the "hoax" fires burning.

I predict: In a certain time span, at some yet undetermined point in future, when the next people to make the trip to the Moon return, and show the existence of ALL th Apollo equipment and evidence of the landing sites, exactly as history depicted....those "hoax" people will continue. How they will twist and spin to explain the Apollo landing sites, one cannot yet predict...but, they are very, very clever (have to hand them that much...clever, and devious) and have utterly no scruples. SO, they will be creative, and invent yet another red-herring "explanation", in a feeble, and futile attempt, to continue their charade.

(I can already guess they will try to claim that the equipment was put up there "secretly", or something...in the year 2018, or whatever...they WILL make any excuse, no matter how inane. We have already seen the evidence of that tactic, before.....)



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I sometimes read the forums here but this is my first ever post.

I'm a Visual Effects Artist. You don't have to take my word for it, I'm pretty sure the things I'm about to say can be validated via google or just about anywhere else. I'm not special.

So what I've gathered reading this epic thread is that someone (Kubrick or whoever doesn't matter) filmed the moon landing. I'm sure people have pointed this out before, but I haven't really read too much about it in this thread.

The big issues for me ...

There was no way this could have been done with front screen projection. Furthermore a 5 - 10 second clip can really take hours to produce properly. The amount of footage for the moon landing not to mention the fact a lot of it appears continuious and unedited ...

Really my issue isn't money. It's people and talent. At any given time there are a finite number of special and visual effects artists. If anything, the 60s were even worse for this without the internet. The number of competent artists then would be less than it is now ... and even with millions of dollars thrown at a film - without the right crew you're not getting anywhere.

There's countless numbers of times where an FX studio has promised to have a film completed only to suffer countless set backs and eventually find the work is sold to the significantly more expensive ILM or similar company. Very few small studios can actually deliver the goods.

Furthermore the slip ups that have occurred over the years ... For example, when Star Wars was first released on video the gamma adjustment revealed the matte lines around various elements in scenes ... This was caused by the video format, and was a mistake made by the best of the best ...

Honestly, as much as people are saying 'how likely is it' in regards to the actual moon landing occurring ... to me it seems even more ridiculous that someone in the 1960s perfected several amazing techniques, and worked with the best of the best of visual and special effects artists to produce the moon landings.

Even ignoring the fact they would want credit for their work and they would have to be the best (not neccessarily most reliable people personally), this is just a logistical nightmare. Reels and reels of slow motion exposure which would include some effort into hiding the fact the scenes are slow motion which is pretty darn hard to do. And this was many years ago before the internet, before CSI, before anything like that ...

I'm fairly sure there would be a nice red flag coming up after 10 - 20 years ... Where did all the 16mm film go? Several special effects artists just randomly taking a holiday? Then coming off that holiday and never producing work remotely that convincing again despite the fact they must have been taught many new techniques. You would actually have to film several hoax movies as a front just to hide the logistics involved for the hoax movie in the background.

No amount of hurling money at anyone remotely resolves these problems. Even the most expensive films have mistakes - huge ones. Yet, somehow a film crew produced a next to flawless piece many decades ago in complete silence that's longer than Lord of the Rings, 20 years ahead in production value, and managed to fool us for this length of time?

Then they worked on compressing that footage in a convincing way which stands the test of time and our knowledge today?

It's a catch 22 I suppose ... they didn't have the knowledge to land on the moon back then? Perhaps.

But to me that seems much more likely than them having the knowledge to perform convincing wire removal and other visual and special effects, not to mention investing in a compression method that they would never ever use again.

And lets face it, the experts can usually spot a wire removal job - I'm sure if one of them noticed on on the moon they would comment.



[edit on 24-6-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Thank you, Pinke! You expressed that perfectly!



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Hey, liking what you wrote, especially by showing the sheer nonsensical idea that the Apollo footage was somehow "faked"...whether by Kubrick, or anyone....just another completely off-base assertion made by the "hoaxers", without any merit in actual evidence.


My casual, and completely layman's (as a film enthusiast) understanding of the intricacies of motion picture making, and visual FX in particular, tell me that what you wrote was spot-on correct.

It is a sad world we live in, though, when such ideas can be tossed out, and then actually be taken seriously, by anyone! :shk:

Snake oil salesmen have existed for a long time, however....there seems to always be a willing bunch of gullibles that come along occasionally, regardless of the amount of education one tries to impart.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Damn Pinkie yet you forget about CBS who was the only station in existence. They had the technology to do this. Some visual effects artist you are. Not even knowing your history in art and television.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Damn Pinkie yet you forget CBS who was the only station in existence

Brilliant...as usual.





[edit on 6/24/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.


Cool so made an error. At least I can admit I make mistakes. How about you?




[edit on 24-6-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.


Why stage the footage when you have the technology to actually go?




Makes no sense to me!



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Phage
 


But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.



No they didn't.

But....

How did they transmit all of it so it looked like it was coming from the moon (and the trip to and from)?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



But I am still correct they had the technology to film the whole thing.


No. You are not correct. Not by a long shot.....not even a little bit close. Missed the mark by a mile. (Insert trite cliche' here....)



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



LOL at the mental breakdown.


I truly wish we could go back, but it is to "much" money.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Ok, dragnet
If you truly think the illustrative cartoons on CBS looked anything like the actual footage from the mission, I would suggest getting your eyesight checked...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join