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: 145
377
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Africa



Im not posting this about the issue of the telephone wire


Hopefully even you realise what a ridiculous claim that one is.



NASA tells us they had 3 stations Spain, Australia and in the USA? NASA did not know about this base in Morocco?
Google Earth
34 16'36.09 N
06 17'29.53 W

Was this what Kaysing was talking about? And if so, how did he know?


Whatever that is, its not a deep space tracking station. If you want to know what the stations that tracked Apollo craft look like, here you go:

Tidbinbilla (been here a few times)

Parkes Radio Telescope

Goldstone

Each has a rather large dish. That site in Morocco, whatever it is, does not. The dish is the critical component needed, Kaysing should be able to point out where it is fairly easily no? They arent exactly easy to hide.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by zvezdar]




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Hi all,

I would seriously urge no one to reply to FoosM until he addresses all the previous points regarding his theories. This debate is not making any progress, and won't till FoosM takes a stand and addresses/fleshes out his theories or abandons some of the points.

Jumping from video to video and random googled post to random googled post; I don't want to waste my bandwith. FoosM must show his concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.


Originally posted by FoosM
How can you, if you indeed work in the AV industry, not see what many others see?


I showed your comments to colleagues and they don't agree with you.

You're firing blind and don't understand the magnitude and theory of faking a perfect shot. The psychology of it is just a distraction. We do scrutinise the moon landing footage, so we're not just looking at it and going 'yeah yeah is real'.

I have looked through your over 200 posts to find someone you consider an expert. (Its not called the AV industry where I am from - this sounds like hifi store things?)


So now why cant she be an expert in perspective as a fine/visual arts teacher? [sic ...]

Im sorry but J.Ws three indepth videos which includes a perspective expert trumps your example photo which is not doing what is going on with the Apollo photo.


An *expert* on perspective. Fine arts teacher. Indepth.

Jarrah has stated 'here is an expert' and you believe him no questions. I have stated ... get this program, do these calculations, see for yourself, and you doubt who I am? Match moving is the art of identifying cameras and lights in 3D space and positioning them for integration of a scene or other purpsoes. 'Fine Arts Teacher' does not have these skills. I'm not an expert, she's outside the ball park et toi?

I would expect an expert on perspective to be able to do more than talk. IE: www....(nolink)/?7j9iw9weey6233t

Some of your further media knowledge from this epic thread:


... you dont need to have on set lights to create the "shadow" anomalies. They could have been inked in, or created by compositing the images.


Address your knowledge in this area before throwing ideas like this out into a forum, or at least admit you need help building a theory. I can make betters ones for you.


So those large background hills or mountains would be a piece of cake to render in 3D, and the foreground, as you can see, cant be verified. LOL


Address your knowledge of this area please – do some research.

My first 3D model was over a decade ago. Done on Amiga, and was an X-wing fighter. I had to render each part one at a time. I could not view the whole model on my computer, so I had to render each part and then comp it in Deluxe Paint. You go from battering 3D CGI to saying it was used to saying they inked it to saying they used front screen projection to saying its easy to spot and an idiot could do it to saying its next to impossible ... Piece of cake? Really???


It seems like the Apollo believers, or I should say "propagandists", because they have an agenda, want you to cite sources.


You have over 200 posts on a single subject and people who don't agree with you have an 'agenda'? Come on! Many of the posters who disagree with you were posting about many other topics before you showed up. I think you have the agenda of supporting Jarrah White's DVD sales to be perfectly honest.


Why are you making posts and cant follow up on questions on it? Especially when your trying to respond to my earlier post. Oh I get it, you dont even understand what your posting. All your doing is going to other forums looking for help and pasting the info here.


^ Your own advice. Enjoy. And please no more video and link spam till you've addressed the logs you already have in the fire. Especially your understanding of light and media.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke


My first 3D model was over a decade ago. Done on Amiga, and was an X-wing fighter. I had to render each part one at a time. I could not view the whole model on my computer, so I had to render each part and then comp it in Deluxe Paint. You go from battering 3D CGI to saying it was used to saying they inked it to saying they used front screen projection to saying its easy to spot and an idiot could do it to saying its next to impossible ... Piece of cake? Really???


This is a good practical example. I also did some 3D models on an Amiga over 15 years ago, just a simple 3D intro for a TV segment that we were doing, and the graphics couldnt be processed on anything less than a top spec Amiga that was designed for that work. Many, many times more powerful than anything available in the 1960's.

I think a lot of the hoax believers underestimate the processing power required to do even basic CGI.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by Pinke


My first 3D model was over a decade ago. Done on Amiga, and was an X-wing fighter. I had to render each part one at a time. I could not view the whole model on my computer, so I had to render each part and then comp it in Deluxe Paint. You go from battering 3D CGI to saying it was used to saying they inked it to saying they used front screen projection to saying its easy to spot and an idiot could do it to saying its next to impossible ... Piece of cake? Really???


This is a good practical example. I also did some 3D models on an Amiga over 15 years ago, just a simple 3D intro for a TV segment that we were doing, and the graphics couldnt be processed on anything less than a top spec Amiga that was designed for that work. Many, many times more powerful than anything available in the 1960's.

I think a lot of the hoax believers underestimate the processing power required to do even basic CGI.


Yes... it's interesting how FoosM mocks the processing capacity aboard the LM, but blithely ignores the ramifications: people just didn't have the ability to do CGI in those days, nor did they have digital photography and video. Very selective perceptions on his part.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
this is all great and all.. but you're about 50 pages to late.. again ..

2nd line...

3rd to be safe




Originally posted by seagull
Until this morning, this thread was going along quite nicely... Then personalities began to rear their heads again...

At the risk of repeating myself...and I am.


The off topic commentary, the rude name calling, and assorted related activities will stop.

You all can discuss this with civility because I've seen you do it.

Denying Ignorance involves showing the person being ignorant where they're wrong. Multiple times, if necessary. What it is not, is calling that member ignorant. That will stop, and I mean now.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by DJW001
 



Simple answer to why the astronauts didn't see it is they were in the wrong place. NASA knew they occurred just didn't know why until recently. This phenomenon mostly occurs at the terminator between light and dark side. Negative dust particles on one side positive on the other. Every once in a while those charges repel and dust flies into the air. Really cool when you think about it would make a great toy for kids.


I dont know if they were in the wrong place:


Electrostatic repulsion among like charges could cause dust particles to levitate 3.3 feet (1 meter) above the surface all over the moon, scientist Denis Richard of NASA's Ames Research Laboratory told SPACE.com.


"All over the moon".
And we know missions landed in the morning.
My question is, what stops the phenomenon from happening?
The moon is always turning, there is always a day and night, and there is no weather on the moon to interrupt this.
So why isnt this a continuous process?
And did the Soviets also encounter this with their probes?
They also took pictures and video if Im not mistaken.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Each has a rather large dish. That site in Morocco, whatever it is, does not. The dish is the critical component needed, Kaysing should be able to point out where it is fairly easily no? They arent exactly easy to hide.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by zvezdar]


Did any of you listen to the video?
The guy said there were dishes.
The bases were closed down in the '70s
After Apollo was terminated supposedly.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 





Jumping from video to video and random googled post to random googled post; I don't want to waste my bandwith. FoosM must show his concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.


since you work in the AV industry, why don't you show us YOUR OWN concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.

see .. what your asking is a full 2000 pg essay on what his 'concepts' of light and shadow are, full knowing that even though he may produce it, you'll never read it.. or even believe it.. or slam him just like you do when someone challenges you .. will you.. and further more .. why should he??! because you ask him to .. so he'll be Johnny-on-the-spot every time you yell JUMP .. he'll jump ?? !!! and if not.. you'll just appeal the the ATS members like a jury with ' oh well.. FoosM can 't jump when I say so .. so this is just a waste of our ATS members time.. no need to see anything else.. move along"..

Since you work in the AV industry, just how many concepts are there ?? and plz.. No WIki.. that's cheating.. i'm looking for YOUR OWN ,,,

How about you do this for us, the ATS members, since you work in the industry.. come up with what you KNOW and are experienced with and WE as ATS members will compare that data and knowledge to what NASA has presented and we'll continue from there..

so .. go ahead.. present away!!! I"m all ears & eyes.. oh and feel free to call in your so call 'buddies' to help us figure out where the data is being skewed at .. ..



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Komodo, I see it escaped you that FOOSM IS MAKING THE CLAIMS. It's up to him, OR YOU to support those (flawed) claims. You are the ones suggesting the historical record is at fault, and failing to prove that.

I see you have neatly avoided providign any actual evidence to support your/foosm's claims, in fact your post is completely free of any supporting information whatsoever - in fact you haven't even managed to be specific about which particular claim you are supporting. Yet you expect others to do so. Nice.



This thread has indeed turned into a sad debacle. That I do agree with, and I won't be adding to it further. It's a pity, for had it been properly monitored and moderated, it could have been a useful reference.


For anyone who would like to see the completion of the radiation analysis (which I note has now been dropped by the deniers.....), I will draw the postings together and start a new thread on that topic only. But don't hold your breath - I have a life and frankly there are more interesting threads going on right now.. so it is likely to be a week or two before I get back to it. I'll post a note here when I get to it.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Hi all,

I would seriously urge no one to reply to FoosM until he addresses all the previous points regarding his theories. This debate is not making any progress, and won't till FoosM takes a stand and addresses/fleshes out his theories or abandons some of the points.

Jumping from video to video and random googled post to random googled post; I don't want to waste my bandwith. FoosM must show his concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.



What's the matter, am I going to fast for you Pinke?

Just because you and your colleagues disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. I hope you understand that. Ive read your post saying I lack this knowledge, Im wrong about that, but you dont know what I do for a living. And no, Im not going to tell you, because it shouldn't matter. You know why it doesnt matter, because none of us have been on the moon. Therefore none of us knows how things really work up there, how things really look.

So if you and your colleagues see no problem with missing track marks from the rover and MET, if they see no problem with blue glowing astronauts, if they see no problem with shooting pictures directly into an overly huge sun and still have the shadow side objects correctly exposed, no radiation damage, well good for you guys, that is your reality. Not mine, and maybe you guys could be right, but even so you can't prove it.

So to sit there and tell people not to debate or discuss topics sounds desperate. Because all we can do is speculate. And as a person who doesn't believe we went to the moon, all I can do is provide evidence of contradiction for my side of the argument.

Apollo rocks = no water on the moon
Wait, water is all over the moon below the surface and above it.

Moon is dead and desolate.
Wait, the dust on the moon is actually active.

From Mercury you should be able to see the stars at daytime.
Wait, from the Moon, to Mercury's daytime sky, astronauts never saw stars, whether they were in the LM, CM, shadow side of the LM, wearing or not wearing their gold visor, etc.
As a matter of fact, I dont think I even heard them bother to even look (except for that deep space walk)
I didnt even hear Houston asking them.

VA Belts = Death Belts!
No wait, astros will fly so fast they will only be exposed for a few minutes.
No wait, it actually took them about two hours.
No wait, VABs not deadly, outside VABs worse, its a sea of Radiation.
Wait, even the moon's surface is radioactive

Never A Straight Answer

Space is cold.
Wait, space is not cold but we got a problem cooling the CM because of the Sun.
Wait, we can simply rotate it. Like how chicken stays cools when its on a rotisserie.
The LM, with less shielding, stays cold, even though its exposed to the Sun. But it does not rotate.

On the moon Astronauts should be able to do backflips, throw objects for god knows how far away.
But what do we see?
Astronauts struggling to jump higher than volleyball players.
They cant throw objects or hit objects farther than the average athlete.

Holding objects in the vacuum of space is very hard.
Wears down your fingernails in your glove.
Pass me that feather there, Pete.
LOL.

Yeah, it all makes sense.

So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.


Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:


The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
since you work in the AV industry, why don't you show us YOUR OWN concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.

see .. what your asking is a full 2000 pg essay on what his 'concepts' of light and shadow are, full knowing that even though he may produce it, you'll never read it.. or even believe it.. or slam him just like you do when someone challenges you .. will you.. and further more .. why should he??! because you ask him to .. so he'll be Johnny-on-the-spot every time you yell JUMP .. he'll jump ?? !!! and if not.. you'll just appeal the the ATS members like a jury with ' oh well.. FoosM can 't jump when I say so .. so this is just a waste of our ATS members time.. no need to see anything else.. move along"..

Since you work in the AV industry, just how many concepts are there ?? and plz.. No WIki.. that's cheating.. i'm looking for YOUR OWN ,,,

How about you do this for us, the ATS members, since you work in the industry.. come up with what you KNOW and are experienced with and WE as ATS members will compare that data and knowledge to what NASA has presented and we'll continue from there..

so .. go ahead.. present away!!! I"m all ears & eyes.. oh and feel free to call in your so call 'buddies' to help us figure out where the data is being skewed at .. ..




Read a few pages back. It has been proven time and time again that FoosM doesn't actually understand light. I have already commented that FoosM has asked others to write out what is basically a thesis on everything he says then posts lol happy faces about it and barely even considers the input.

What are you talking about 'how many concepts' anyway. They're FoosM's concepts! I can't demonstrate FoosM's understanding of light for FoosM. There are plenty of previous pages for FoosM to correct himself or alter his theory since his original observation is wrong.

I'm not looking for him to tell me all about light but to show that he actually understands it would be nice or at least that he's taking the steps to. When a point comes up that blatantly shows FoosM's logic is wrong links are spammed, things are copied and pasted ... Until no one knows what the hell anyone is talking about any more.

Look back at the previous posts I've been busily trying to explain things and then every time the goal posts are moved or FoosM 180 degrees the point he was making in the first place.

Read back and look at the time I've spent here. In any debate it's polite to admit what you know and don't. It's polite not to constantly change the subject. I'm not the best writer but you can see I've tried. I haven't just pointed at random things in a picture and said 'explain that' as others have in this thread then proceeded to responded with ...

yeah right?!

I've always tackled the issue. I've taken the time to read all of his words. And point to what I've wiki'd or googled? Some of FoosM's examples (in fact all movies he has used) are directly able to be googled with the words 'moon hoax' in it. Point to anyone I've been 'slamming' - I've posted in many threads and get on fine with people.

So I could track the the shadows and try and build the lighting of the moon scene. I could show the directions they're coming from. I could show the light sources. But frankly I've seen what happens when people take the time to do this. FoosM won't respect my efforts he will sit and


I think it's fair that the ATS members contributing this thread can ask FoosM to answer to some of his claims that have been proven blatantly wrong. Apparently you seem to not think so.

Unfortunately everyone else has been 'Johhnny on the spot' for FoosM in this thread and if you can't see that then we clearly share a different reality, and I suggest parting ways because debating with me won't do you any good.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Pinke]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Pinke
Hi all,

I would seriously urge no one to reply to FoosM until he addresses all the previous points regarding his theories. This debate is not making any progress, and won't till FoosM takes a stand and addresses/fleshes out his theories or abandons some of the points.

Jumping from video to video and random googled post to random googled post; I don't want to waste my bandwith. FoosM must show his concepts of light and cameras are sound or this is just a waste of everyone’s time.



What's the matter, am I going to fast for you Pinke?

Just because you and your colleagues disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. I hope you understand that. Ive read your post saying I lack this knowledge, Im wrong about that, but you dont know what I do for a living. And no, Im not going to tell you, because it shouldn't matter. You know why it doesnt matter, because none of us have been on the moon. Therefore none of us knows how things really work up there, how things really look.

You quote physicists who have worked out a theory that lunar dust might be electrically charged and use that to support your argument, then turn around and claim no-one knows how things really work up there. That's actually funny. Simple Newtonian physics explains so much of what you think is "wrong" about the videos. Mass v. weight. Optics (another favorite topic for Newton) explains just about everything else.



So if you and your colleagues see no problem with missing track marks from the rover and MET, if they see no problem with blue glowing astronauts, if they see no problem with shooting pictures directly into an overly huge sun and still have the shadow side objects correctly exposed, no radiation damage, well good for you guys, that is your reality. Not mine, and maybe you guys could be right, but even so you can't prove it.

Missing track marks? You mean on the Moon it's impossible for astronauts to kick around and fill in tracks? I can post a video of volleyball players kicking sand around if it would help you understand. As for "an overly huge sun," that goes straight to your understanding of photography, doesn't it, as does the question of why the shadowed area of an overexposed shot would look properly exposed. The glowing blue astronauts are intriguing, I was planning a better researched presentation, but: NASA claims it was caused by dust on the lens. Did the astronauts drop the camera? And even if they did, why would the dust stick? Hmmm... static electricity, maybe? Caused by sunlight ionizing dust particles... as in the "dust fountain" theory? As for radiation damage: CHRLZ will presumably address that at length in his own thread.


So to sit there and tell people not to debate or discuss topics sounds desperate. Because all we can do is speculate. And as a person who doesn't believe we went to the moon, all I can do is provide evidence of contradiction for my side of the argument.

If that is all you can do, you do not have any actual evidence. You must produce something positive. A memo from the Head of NASA. Testimony from a whistleblower. A length of film prepared for the matte process. Covert photographs of the filming being done, etc. There is clearly a reason why you cannot produce these things. They do not exist because your assertion is false.


Apollo rocks = no water on the moon
Wait, water is all over the moon below the surface and above it.

Moon is dead and desolate.
Wait, the dust on the moon is actually active.

You reduce complicated findings into exaggerated, simplistic form. They are not contradictions, they are refinement of knowledge.


From Mercury you should be able to see the stars at daytime.
Wait, from the Moon, to Mercury's daytime sky, astronauts never saw stars, whether they were in the LM, CM, shadow side of the LM, wearing or not wearing their gold visor, etc.
As a matter of fact, I dont think I even heard them bother to even look (except for that deep space walk)
I didnt even hear Houston asking them.


Dealt with a great length elsewhere.


VA Belts = Death Belts!
No wait, astros will fly so fast they will only be exposed for a few minutes.
No wait, it actually took them about two hours.
No wait, VABs not deadly, outside VABs worse, its a sea of Radiation.
Wait, even the moon's surface is radioactive

You ignored that discussion as well, I see.


Never A Straight Answer


So where's that list of SFX artists who agree with you?


Space is cold.
Wait, space is not cold but we got a problem cooling the CM because of the Sun.
Wait, we can simply rotate it. Like how chicken stays cools when its on a rotisserie.
The LM, with less shielding, stays cold, even though its exposed to the Sun. But it does not rotate.

Go back and start reading here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


On the moon Astronauts should be able to do backflips, throw objects for god knows how far away.

Says who?

But what do we see?
Astronauts struggling to jump higher than volleyball players.
They cant throw objects or hit objects farther than the average athlete.

Why should they? Please explain in detail. (Hint: Mass v. weight)


Holding objects in the vacuum of space is very hard.
Wears down your fingernails in your glove.
Pass me that feather there, Pete.
LOL.

Yeah, it all makes sense.

So what looks strange to you about that clip is that an astronaut could hold a feather, not the the feather and the hammer fell at the same speed?



So I asked the question, how could you get hotspots on the Ladder and the Astronauts helmet?

Someone said from EARTH.


Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?


Of course he goes on to say the moon itself. But the moon would not create spot like effects on the helmet and ladder. Especially because he states this:


The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

www.badastronomy.com...

See? Where did the spot lights come from?

From the Earth. That's why there's a faint bluish color when the exposure is set to record objects in shadow. Pay attention, please.

If you wonder why we call your fundamental understanding of things like light and shadow into question, it's "interpretations" like this:


Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What's the matter, am I going to fast for you Pinke?

Just because you and your colleagues disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. I hope you understand that. Ive read your post saying I lack this knowledge, Im wrong about that, but you dont know what I do for a living. And no, Im not going to tell you, because it shouldn't matter. You know why it doesnt matter, because none of us have been on the moon. Therefore none of us knows how things really work up there, how things really look.


You're simply ignoring every point you've been shown to be wrong/shown to be not understanding the topics then drawing attention to topics I clearly won't address because they are not my field. I won't throw myself into debate that I clearly don't have the complete knowledge and time to research like yourself.

You constantly demand answers and johnny-on-the-spot stuff, disrespect the providers of it even when they're nice to you, then take offense when anyone asks you a question. Honestly, this is impossible.

And you *could* be right but the way you are presenting your points is poor, messy, and entirely pointless. Someone asks you about your poor evaluation of shadows? Omg where are the tracks?! Someone makes a point about that, and we're off on some other tangent. It's *not* fast, it's a pointless unanswerable form of debate using constant subject changes to bump this thread.

What you do for a living is apparently important for you when it's a 'perspective expert' on a 'Jarrah White' video, but not when it disagrees with you? I don't care what you do for a living - you still don't understand what happens when two lights clash, you still don't understand what you're on about, you still just throw out random ideas with no research to back it up and when you do it you just insult people. By the very same logic what I do for a living doesn't matter ... the things I've said about light are factual, the things you've said at times are off. I've seen you hunt people down for making mistakes so don't make out like I'm giving you a hard time! Answer to the mistakes or adjust your theory so people have something to work with.

I find it bizarre that you and all your friends first reaction to someone knowing something is ... Oh it can't be true! You must be wiki'ing and googling and such!!! Meet me in a chat room. I can chat about all of this material very fluently I assure you. This would be showing decorum and an offer to share ideas and concepts of course but it seems easier for you to insult people. If you were nice to me I would be quite pleased to assist you with your debate.

From what you've written your conclusion to this debate and your lack of understanding of media is ... it doesn't matter because no one has seen the moon and it could be a pink unicorn for all we know!

Very well, this is a good conclusion for this thread, and I pity the poor people that continue this pointless repetitive debate. I just hope they see the last handful of posts and leave before they start.

See it *is* a shame Foosm because like Von Daniken and so many others who were before you - you leap enthusiastically into a debate without thinking and thus waste everyone's time because even if you're 10% right we can't dig through the 90% wrong! Imagine if you *are* right, and if you just put a little more thought in, and had a little bit more care for your fellow community members, you might actually change a few minds.

Think on it.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Just to put some of the more recent "red herring" claims in perspective:


...(A) team of geologists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), working with colleagues at the University of Tennessee, has found structurally bound hydroxyl groups (i.e., water) in a mineral in a lunar rock returned to Earth by the Apollo program.

To be precise, they didn't find "water"-the molecule H2O. Rather, they found hydrogen in the form of a hydroxyl anion, OH-, bound in the apatite mineral lattice....

Does that mean the moon is as awash in water as our planet? Almost certainly not, say the scientists. In fact, the amount of water the moon must contain to be capable of generating hydroxyl-rich apatite remains an open question.

After all, it's hard to scale up the amount of water found in the apatite-1600 parts per million or 0.16 percent by weight-to determine just how much water there is on the lunar landscape. The apatite that was studied is not abundant, and is formed by processes that tend to concentrate hydrogen to much higher levels than are present in its host rocks or the moon as a whole.

"There's more water on the moon than people suspected," says Eiler, "but there's still likely orders of magnitude less than there is on the earth."...


www.moondaily.com...

So scientists have done further tests on the lunar samples and discovered something new forty years on. Does this prove that they are "fake?" Or does it prove they continue to yield valuable data? To coin a particularly inept phrase: "You can't have your fake moon rocks and eat them too."



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


LOL it is funny Foosm was owning you guys and then all of a sudden new screen names come in just to support your claims and just to get more "people" on your side to show you are right. Then you guys go on crying about sources to the mods to maybe ban FOOSM. It is sad really how these believers just do anything to win an argument.


LOL Jarrah is right. YOu guys remind me of the Neku men.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I like this article much better.

hehe go dutch!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



LOL it is funny Foosm was owning you guys ...


???

I would think he should be quite embarrassed to so blatantly advertise his ignorance to the rest of the online community.

Oh, wait! You actually think he contributed something of value???!!!???
Wow....

No...all that FoosM managed to do was embarrass himself in front of a world-wide audience in a desperate attempt to be a "cheerleader" for "Jarrah White" --- and it's too bad, because "JW" is hardly worth the bother.

THIS thread has shown that thoroughly, as each and every 'claim' made by "JW" has been explained as meritless.

He is a fraud, and anyone who believes in him is perpetuating that fraud.

So, the tactics employed by FoosM --- obfuscation, daft ignorance, unwillingness to directly answer challenges, and consistent and repeated SPAMMING of the thread with nonsense that has been already explained indicate one of two things:

A person unable to grasp the very simplest of concepts when properly and repeatedly presented in clear, concise fashion, OR; A person with an agenda to steer, at any desperate method to hand, people to a flappin' idiot's YouTube channel of garbage videos.

I think the very intelligent audience knows quite clearly what has been really going on in this thread.....






[edit on 23 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Speaking of being Owned.. i was reading a thread over at apollohoax.net, and a certain point a certain 'FM' (who could that be?) enters the thread and pretty much does the exact same thing Foosm has been doing here. It's exactly the same pattern over and over again:

Foosm (FM) makes some dumb claims, people answer him and he gets owned, Foosm (FM) ignores answers and makes a new bunch of equally dumb claims, people answer again, Foosm fails to understand and/or acknowledge answers, Foosm (FM) makes new claims.. etc etc..

Have a look for yourself and see if this looks familiar to you. Especially the whole dog and ponyshow on radiation and the Van Allen radiation Belts (yep that again) is remarkably familiar.

At a certain point FM doesn't seem to understand a schematic somebody drew to indicate how the inclination of Apollo 11's trajectory helped them avoid most of the radiation on the VARBS. In the end a user made some very detailed 3d animations, so there was no way to misunderstand it, and i wonder if at that point he finally got it.. lol



apollohoax.proboards.com...

Gotta give it to ya, FoosMasoos, you're a rare breed


[edit on 23-7-2010 by payt69]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by DJW001
 


I like this article much better.

hehe go dutch!



The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.

William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.
"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.

The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.
Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.
"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.



www.telegraph.co.uk...

The rock was not given by NASA to the museum for scientific study. It was presented as a gift by an American diplomat to a Dutch official to commemorate the astronauts' visit. It was not portrayed as a sample, but a souvenir. When it was passed on to the museum, after the recipient's death, there was no question of it being an actual "moon rock." Nevertheless, the Embassy is investigating. It's a bit like a diplomat gave an official a reproduction of the US constitution to commemorate their friendship and the official thought it was the original.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Did any of you listen to the video?
The guy said there were dishes.
The bases were closed down in the '70s
After Apollo was terminated supposedly.



Yeah, i did. The video has very little content in it, and very very little information of any credibility. I hoped that pointing out the difference between the images in the video and a deep space tracking station would be enough, but i guess i have to go into more depth now.

Firstly, he claims Sidi Yahya is 60 miles from Kenitra. Its 15 miles at most, though he may be confused with the exact location as there are a lot of towns whose names begin with "Sidi Yahya". The exact location is Sidi Yayha du Rharb.

Next, he claims there were 30 'dishes' at Sidi Yahya. He also claims that Kenitra had 30 'dishes'.

Its pretty obvious that what he is calling 'dishes' are antenna. The images shown in the video are what the antenna for a typical naval communications base look like (i grew up near one). A naval communications facility does not have the type of satellite dish that would be used for deep space communication.

Communicating with naval vessels, and communicating with a spacecraft, requires two completely different sets of hardware. There is absolutely no reason that a naval communication facility would have 60 satellite dishes, and no evidence that the Kenitra or Sidi Yahya du Rharb facilities had anything but naval communications antenna. The naval comms gear is still there, with no physical evidence of there ever being a large number of dishes present. You only need a large array of dishes for radio telescope work in any case, not for communications. So what he is claiming makes no sense at all.

Lastly, why would NASA know anything about a naval communications facility? There are dozens of them around the world, and their role has nothing to do with NASA. Its purely terrestrial communication. The only link to NASA in the whole video was the bloke saying "my dad told me that they relayed Apollo missions" without even saying what means by "relayed".



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join