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: 122
377
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM
 

I believe it would be impossible to prove to you that anything exists.

EX: Did New York City exist in the 60's?
All we have is photographs, videos, eyewitnesses, etc. All of which you have discounted in this thread. All of which could be faked.

By your reasoning, it's quite possible that New York did not exist prior to the 90's. It's even possible that it doesn't exist even now. (scale models?)

(If you happen to have visited NYC, then substitute New York with Istanbul, or anywhere you haven't been to.)

My point is, short of taking you personally to the moon, I don't think you'd ever be convince. Even if you did go personally, it would be quite possible that you were actually a victim of MK-Ultra mind control. Like I said, there is no convincing you.

 

question (to everyone)

Is JW posting in this thread?

[edit on 25/6/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



Philosophy isnt going to make Apollo any more real than fire breathing dragons... do you believe in dragons and unicorns? There is plenty of books about them. LOL

Its very simple.
Prior to Apollo it was impossible to go the moon.
After Apollo it is impossible to go to the moon.
Therefore, common sense should tell you, Apollo didnt go to the moon.
And evidence of Apollo going to the moon is as weak watered down beer.

And tell me, why would you want to convince me to believe in a lie?
What kind of person are you to want to do something like that?




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


I would really, really like to know too...


question (to everyone)

Is JW posting in this thread?



There comes a point, methinks, when STAFF might wish to get involved??

Anonymity of members is highly, highly prized though....and inviolate. It is a basic ATS tenet.

SO.....we may never know for certain.....Foosm, will we??



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


And tell me, why would you want to convince me to believe in a lie?

I'm simply trying to show you that perhaps your standard of what would constitute proof might be unreasonable.

In fact, anything that you would post in an attempt to prove that New York exists, I could discount using your methods.

Joe has been to New York. He's lying.

We have multiple videos of people in NYC in the 60's. Faked. Shot on gigantic stage.

Videos shot from helicopters. Scale model.

Pictures. Faked.

Broadcast emitting from NYC. Faked, the broadcasts are actually from Buffalo.

Rock samples native to Manhattan. Fakes, rocks actually from Minnesota.


You see, how long we could go on like this?

Is there anything that would convinced you that humans have been on the moon? No.


[edit on 25/6/10 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM
 


And tell me, why would you want to convince me to believe in a lie?

I'm simply trying to show you that perhaps your standard of what would constitute proof might be unreasonable.

In fact, anything that you would post in an attempt to prove that New York exists, I could discount using your methods.

Joe has been to New York. He's lying.

We have multiple videos of people in NYC in the 60's. Faked. Shot on gigantic stage.

Videos shot from helicopters. Scale model.

Pictures. Faked.

Broadcast emitting from NYC. Faked, the broadcasts are actually from Buffalo.

Rock samples native to Manhattan. Fakes, rocks actually from Minnesota.


You see, how long we could go on like this?

Is there anything that would convinced you that humans have been on the moon? No.


[edit on 25/6/10 by ConspiracyNut23]


Well that wont work because I've been to NY.

But lets take it further.
I can believe NY exists without going there because there are witnesses who can testify going to NY on a daily basis on their own free will.
Not only that, but products come out of NY.
Not only that, but other countries have managed to build cities, so theoretically a city like NY could exists.

You cant say that about Apollo.
Nobody can go back at their own free will, no products come from the moon made by man, and no other country have been able to reproduce a moonlanding like what the US did in the '60s.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its very simple.
Prior to Apollo it was impossible to go the moon.
After Apollo it is impossible to go to the moon.
Therefore, common sense should tell you, Apollo didnt go to the moon.


If it were impossible to go to the Moon, then Apollo could not have gone to the Moon. You've wasted 120 pages and still can't prove it. That's "all" you have to do. Find one scientific fact that would render it impossible. Show us the numbers. Failing that, admit that it's possible but it was faked anyway. Produce the documents: the classified executive order from JFK, the stolen admin reports of the various task forces, the lost scraps of film showing the tell tale signs of being masked for the matte process. Failing that, admit you're the one who believes in unicorns.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Jarrah throws down gauntlet to his detractors.





posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
In other words, he's going down with the ship. That's almost honorable.
Are we stilll doing second lines?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its very simple.
Prior to Apollo it was impossible to go the moon.
After Apollo it is impossible to go to the moon.
Therefore, common sense should tell you, Apollo didnt go to the moon.


If it were impossible to go to the Moon, then Apollo could not have gone to the Moon. You've wasted 120 pages and still can't prove it. That's "all" you have to do. Find one scientific fact that would render it impossible. Show us the numbers. Failing that, admit that it's possible but it was faked anyway. Produce the documents: the classified executive order from JFK, the stolen admin reports of the various task forces, the lost scraps of film showing the tell tale signs of being masked for the matte process. Failing that, admit you're the one who believes in unicorns.



Wait what?



admit that it's possible but it was faked anyway.


So you DO think it was faked?



I knew you guys would stealthily admit it was faked



Now you just want to hold on to the scientific principles in sending a man to the moon
as being true.



If you were paying attention all those 120 pages, I said long time ago that the science behind Apollo is probably sound, I just dont think they would risk it in front live onlookers around the world. They just wouldnt.

As a matter of fact, I just watched Capricorn One again last night, and the story pretty much explains how and why it was faked. It even gave the clue who was behind the fake... which again leaves me to the powers that be behind Apollo and the Kennedy assassination.

Capricorn One ('77) inspired by al legations that the Apollo Moon landing was a hoaxwas written & directed by Peter Hyams... The same guy who did 2010 and is the sequel to 2001, whose director, Kubrik, many believe helped staged the moon landings. Capricorn One is Peter's first major motion picture.
But his first film was in 1972, the year Apollo last "flew" to the moon.

Another notable Sci-fi film from Peter is Outland ('81).
Outland used for the first time a technique called IntroVision.

"A front projection composite photography system using a pair of perpendicular reflex screens to combine two projected scenes with a scene staged live before the camera in a single shot. It utilizes a camera, two projectors, and respective associated three half-silver mirrors/beam-splitters. It allows foreground, midground and background elements to be combined in-camera: such as sandwiching stage action (such as actors) between two projected elements, foreground and background"

In other words, its and advanced version of 'front projection'
Thats right, the same 'front projection' used by Kubrik in 2001, and also Superman btw.

Before Peter became a film director he worked for CBS from 1964 to 1970. Yes that same CBS with the CBS New Space Center and all its special effects props.
www.gettyimages.com...
During that time he also began to shoot documentary films.

So who was behind Capricorn One? Well its a production company called

Associated General Films

How generic sounding, like a front company for the Mob, or CIA. lol.
Well they made the following:

Capricorn One (1977) ...
March or Die (1977) ...
The Domino Principle (1977) ...
The Eagle Has Landed (1976) ...
Voyage of the Damned (1976) ...
The Cassandra Crossing (1976) ...

Thats right Capricorn One seems to have been their last film.
They came and went in two years. Very odd. But the film business is brutal.
What I also found strange was that many of their films were packed with "stars".
And in some subtle ways the Film titles all seem to hint at something...


And of course presenting the film was Lord Lew Grade:


Lew Grade and his brother Leslie Grade founded a talent agency in 1933, which grew into the largest in the UK. With partner Joe Collins, father of Joan and Jackie Collins, the agency eventually represented some of the biggest and most prestigious stars in British show business, including Sir Ralph Richardson and Lord Laurence Olivier. His other brother Bernie, now Bernard (later Lord) Delfont, also made his way into show business, later becoming the head of the music industry behemoth EMI. (Lord Grade's own interests included Pye Records.)

Entering television, Grade's production company ITC Entertainment was responsible for the iconic 1960s British TV series "The Saint" and "The Prisoner." He acquired the independent production company AP Films in 1962, which produced the popular children's marionette adventure series "Thunderbirds" among others. AP Films also produced three feature films, and the live-action sci-fi series "Space: 1999."


The power of TV and presentation:



Alternative 3 is a television programme, broadcast once only in the United Kingdom in 1977... an heir to Orson Welles' radio production of The War of the Worlds. Purporting to be an investigation into the UK's contemporary "brain drain," Alternative 3 uncovered a plan to make the moon and Mars habitable in the event of climate change and a terminal environmental catastrophe on Earth.

The programme was originally meant to be broadcast on April Fools Day, 1977. While its broadcast was delayed until June by industrial action, the credits explicitly date the film to April 1. Alternative 3 ended with credits for the actors involved in the production and featured interviews with a fictitious American astronaut.

Within minutes of the programme ending, Anglia Television was flooded with telephone calls demanding more information. Callers were told the programme was a hoax. The Times on 21 June reported that "Independent television companies last night received hundreds of protest calls after an Anglia program, Alternative 3, gave alarming facts about changes in the earth’s atmosphere. It was a hoax, originally intended for April 1st." It also pointed out that several of the character in the programme were played by well known actors.

...As an Anglia TV spokeseman put it, 'We felt viewers would be fairly sophisticated about it.'"

...television and newspapers were "swamped" with inquiries about Alternative 3



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
FoosM seems to apply his special criteria only to apollo.
How do you know products come out of cleveland?
Earlier he claimed the concorde was real.
I wouldnt be suprised if he believed in the existence of nuclear bombs.

You need to wake up FoosM, and stop being a sheeple



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Guys why is this still even being talked about? It's evident some people are a little mentally challenged when it comes to actual science. Stop wasting your time trying to convince them. It doesn't matter what they think does it? I came to the conclusion several years ago that anyone who still refuses to listen even when the evidence for the moon missions is overwhelming is either a bit thick or will never be convinced because they have a vested interest in their illogical opinion.
Either way they're a waste of time, so let them bore themselves until they move onto holographic planes at the WTC or something.
It's obvious Jarrah failed his science class when he submitted his school work 'debunking' the moon shot, destroying his hopes of moving on to a degree. It's all he has now for an income so he'll keep producing his garbage, it's not like anyone other than McDonald's is going to hire him now is it? I think it's safe to say that big science job is nothing more than a distant fantasy now with his CV. Unless ACME is hiring developers for pseudoscientific cartoon props utilising dodgy physics for kids?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
FoosM seems to apply his special criteria only to apollo.
How do you know products come out of cleveland?
Earlier he claimed the concorde was real.
I wouldnt be suprised if he believed in the existence of nuclear bombs.

You need to wake up FoosM, and stop being a sheeple



Actually Nuclear weaponry are up for debate as well.
But fine that you have added such valuable information to this discussion.
People can learn so much from you...




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Guys why is this still even being talked about?


Because its necessary thats why.
And there is alot about the subject that has never been covered.
The more people who dig into the subject, the quicker the truth will be revealed.
I feel very certain that soon that the Apollo will be substantiated as a hoax.
So prepare yourself for your massive mental breakdown.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
But we covered everything in this thread and a lot more here on ATS several years ago? In a lot more detail? The Moon shot 'debunkers' had to leave feeling confused in the end as the physics were a bit too much for them I think once we started getting heavily into radiation doseages and such. If you learn to read then you could have saved yourself this massive embarassment by just going over the previous threads and saving yourself the trouble.
There is NOTHING new in this thread from Hoax believers that hasn't been debunked, dissected and thrown away I'm afraid. Try reading and learning instead of being a little Jarrah Sheeple, unless you are the dimwit himself in which case I'm sorry you wasted your life like this

But hey it's not too late, I'll give you some links to help you on your way to true scientific understanding, there are even hours and hours of videos for you to watch which I know you like


ocw.mit.edu...

ocw.mit.edu...

ocw.mit.edu...

That should get you started, let me know when you've finished studying and we might be able to have a sensible conversation

See you in a few years



[edit on 26-6-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Prior to Apollo it was impossible to go the moon.
After Apollo it is impossible to go to the moon.

I said long time ago that the science behind Apollo is probably sound,




Airtight reasoning, as usual.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But we covered everything in this thread and a lot more here on ATS several years ago? In a lot more detail? The Moon shot 'debunkers' had to leave feeling confused in the end as the physics were a bit too much for them I think once we started getting heavily into radiation doseages and such.


Whatever, you dont see me running anywhere do you?
Physics dont prove man landed on the moon do they?
Got anything else "impressive" to prove that it happened?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Physics dont prove man landed on the moon do they?


Your kidding me right? BTW great grammar :shk:


[edit on 26-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 



Physics dont prove man landed on the moon do they?


Your kidding me right? BTW great grammar :shk:


[edit on 26-6-2010 by theability]


Are you reduced to attacking a persons sentence structure?
I told you guys, you all are running out of steam and out of ideas.

And no, Im not kidding. How does physics prove man landed on the moon?
You just wasted a post proving otherwise, try it again.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


How does physics prove man landed on the moon?


You have admitted that physics does not make it impossible to go to the Moon. There are physical samples of lunar rocks. There are spacecraft that, if tested, will show signs of having been in space. There are living witnesses to every phase of every mission. There are data, photographs, etc. So, if as you admit, it's possible to go to the Moon, submit your evidence that they did not.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by debunky
FoosM seems to apply his special criteria only to apollo.
How do you know products come out of cleveland?
Earlier he claimed the concorde was real.
I wouldnt be suprised if he believed in the existence of nuclear bombs.

You need to wake up FoosM, and stop being a sheeple



Actually Nuclear weaponry are up for debate as well.
But fine that you have added such valuable information to this discussion.
People can learn so much from you...



Ahhh, i see.
Apollo you can copy paste
Nukes you can copy paste
Concorde you would have to think for yourself



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you reduced to attacking a persons sentence structure?


I don't have to attack you personally? You sentence that you posted was horrid!

That isn't a personal attack it is THE TRUTH!

Learn the difference.

If I wanted to attack you, I'd talked about your inability to see reality.

Also be in tune with physics, and of course understanding basic principles of spaceflight, which you have demonstrated a million times you do not.

Pointing out your sentence was horrible isn't an attack Foosm, don't be such a baby,

BOO HOO! :shk:

There isn't single thing on this thread that you have been right about YET!





[edit on 26-6-2010 by theability]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by theability]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join