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: 16
377
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Could Apollo have been hoaxed using simulation data? Yup

...And I am not the only one who thinks that this is a possibility:




Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.

*Edit: The USA could have gone son far as to send unmanned probes to land on the moon, with rovers and another smaller vehicle to make simulated tracks. This could also act as a re-transmitter and make sure that there was something to me seen if any other nation managed to image the alleged landing sights with enough detail to see the landers/rovers.

Such a probe-set and the data they returned would be instrumental in simulation of the lunar EVA's here on earth. It would provide us with real orbital photos and even video of the 'lunar landing' - and all of that goes along way towards making the moonwalks more believable.





[edit on 2-5-2010 by Exuberant1]




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I too think this is probably what happened. It goes to the heart of the question ..

how did they keep this a secret from everyone?

Well, they didn't have to. All of the NASA techs on the day would be trusting their instruments. They wouldn't know if the telemetry was pre-recorded or not. They would have thought it was the real thing.

Only select people needed to know what really went on.



Originally posted by Exuberant1
Could Apollo have been hoaxed using simulation data? Yup
...And I am not the only one who thinks that this is a possibility:



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Exuberant1, could I possibly ask you, in the nicest most courteous way...


Please CITE your quotes. Thanks.


(It's not that I don't believe you, but some of us 'thorough-types' like to examine context...)



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Well, they didn't have to. All of the NASA techs on the day would be trusting their instruments. They wouldn't know if the telemetry was pre-recorded or not. They would have thought it was the real thing.


Indeed.

And you can bet that there was probably somebody - somebody in the know - there to help them explain away any anomalies that may have cropped up.
Any explanation given would be as acceptable as possible and planned out in advance for whenever these eventualities would rear their ugly head.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 





Oh dear, the google Earth pictures at lower altitudes are taken by planes, so of course the LRO photos aren't going to be of the same detail.


Not all of the Google Earth pics are made by planes, go to North-Korea on GE, for instance, the pics are definately not made by planes, but are definately better than the LRO footage, and made by satellite.

Also, the LRO doesn't have a thick atmosphere to look through.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

I am replying to you not because I like nor dislike you but rather because, for some reason, I think that you are being sincere. However you make the mistake of falling into a trap that is beyond resolve.

I take it that you believe the manned Moon missions were faked and NASA is consistently lying about it all. If this is the case then from your point of view all NASA data and information should be considered false. To use some data from NASA to disprove other data from NASA is to 'cherry pick' information and herein lies your circular reasoning.


If I am questioning the legitimacy of the moon landings, then using the information gathered from the supposed moon landings to answer my question is circular reasoning.

That is not debatable.

Just simply extrapolate this statement, which I agree with, to the argument you are using about the LRO radiation data which is also NASA data.

I don't have a problem with you accepting or rejecting any of NASA's information, that's up to you. I might have a little problem with you 'cherry picking' information to prove your point or disprove another point but the real problem is in your circular reasoning and how you accuse others of doing the same. If NASA is indeed lying about the Apollo manned Moon missions then none of what they say should be considered reliable, in other words it is all false. This would not be a little mistake but rather a HUGE cover-up.

As I posted earlier the original point of information is that astronauts walked on the Moon and there is a myriad of evidence supporting this. Using this evidence to support this claim is reasonable and legitimate, not circular by any means.

However, using information from NASA collected by NASA as proof that NASA is lying is a risky argument. This argument fails even more so when you start accusing others of making the same mistake that you are making. At some point we need to either accept the information from NASA as legitimate or dismiss it all as false.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


No other nations have been able to see the Apollo landers.

Not even the Mighty Soviet Union who some allege would 'blow the whistle on the whole thing' - they couldn't take a picture of the landers... even if they were there.

Apparently only American spacecraft can see the Apollo landers, only the accused (NASA) can provide evidence that their spacecraft are present. No third-party substantiation has been forthcoming.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 





At some point we need to either accept the information from NASA as legitimate or dismiss it all as false.


And why is that? All good lies are wrapped in truth.

Obviously, NASA would've been busted years ago, if all they did was put out false information.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Just a little friendly reminder..

Above, Exuberant1, you posted claims regarding quotes from a Frank Byrne, namely:

Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.



Please supply your source for these quotes.

(If anyone is wondering, "Moonfaker Exhibit D" covers at least 11 videos, if not more...)



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Devino
 



At some point we need to either accept the information from NASA as legitimate or dismiss it all as false.

And why is that? All good lies are wrapped in truth.

Obviously, NASA would've been busted years ago, if all they did was put out false information.


My statement is in reply to Josephus23 pertaining to the manner of debating this topic and not a general statement about NASA's information.

One could use information from NASA or any other source to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon but to use the same information from NASA to attempt to disprove the Moon landings is a very risky move (hence circular reasoning). I would think it better to use outside information to attempt to prove NASA is lying yet the reply to this is that there is no outside information available, how convenient.

It is from this logic that I concede that NASA is not lying, we did go to the Moon and NASA's data is legitimate. This does not mean, however, that NASA does not make mistakes or that there are no unknown things out there.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 





One could use information from NASA or any other source to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon but to use the same information from NASA to attempt to disprove the Moon landings is a very risky move (hence circular reasoning)


I don't see the problem. If NASA's information about the landings, defies laws of physics and common sense, it could indicate that the events were faked.

Frankly, I don't see a better source to debunk the moon landings. Why would you use an outside source, if NASA is claiming it, if anyone's info should be scrutinized, it's theirs.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Can someone do me a favour and ask Exuberant1 about his thoughts on the Soviet Luna 16 soil samples that were returned to earth and the fact that those samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.

It seems the champion of debate has me on ignore.

Bit unbecoming of a champion one would think but hey, who am I to judge?

[edit on 2/5/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   


One could use information from NASA or any other source to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon but to use the same information from NASA to attempt to disprove the Moon landings is a very risky move


The fact his that Jarrah White does just that. He uses nasa info and info we got from the lunar missions to discredit those same missions, I mean he his accepting info and scientific data from the missions to say that those exact mission didnt happen...what a joke.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
It doesn't take a "Genius" to point out flaws in a situation! It takes time, logical thinking and effort to show your accusations!

This kid isn't a genius, but he knows, and shows people how to think logically!



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Devino
 



One could use information from NASA or any other source to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon but to use the same information from NASA to attempt to disprove the Moon landings is a very risky move (hence circular reasoning)


I don't see the problem. If NASA's information about the landings, defies laws of physics and common sense, it could indicate that the events were faked.

The laws of physics would be considered an outside source to that of NASA.

JAXA Moon images would also be an outside source yet neither of these are disproving the claim that we went to the Moon.

Here is my point of a basic circular argument.
If a man were to admit that he is a lair is he telling the truth?
If NASA provides evidence that they are intentionally lying about one thing then how can we take this evidence as the truth?
Which is the lie and which is the truth?
In these cases there is no resolve and therefore this is a futile argument.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Can someone do me a favour and ask Exuberant1 about his thoughts on the Soviet Luna 16 soil samples that were returned to earth and the fact that those samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.

It seems the champion of debate has me on ignore.

Bit unbecoming of a champion one would think but hey, who am I to judge?

[edit on 2/5/10 by Chadwickus]


Can I play devil's advocate for a moment? What would be the point of comparing the two samples? One we know was obtained without men on the moon. So if that is the same as the samples NASA claims we brought back...how does that help? Obviously this also proves these samples can be obtained without sending men to the moon?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


He's pointing out the inconsistentcies in NASA's story, off course he's gonna use their own data.

Why is this not "fair"?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal


One could use information from NASA or any other source to prove that we did indeed go to the Moon but to use the same information from NASA to attempt to disprove the Moon landings is a very risky move


The fact his that Jarrah White does just that. He uses nasa info and info we got from the lunar missions to discredit those same missions, I mean he his accepting info and scientific data from the missions to say that those exact mission didnt happen...what a joke.


Apparently this flawed argument is getting repeated for some reason. It is not circular logic. NASA has a vast body of data from many sources. It is not disingenuous or methodologically flawed to accuse one of these particular sources of being fraudulent, while citing evidence from the other sources that are not disputed.

Game on =)



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


If the Apollo landings were faked, then the rocks and soil samples that were returned would also have to be faked.

Agreed?

So we have samples returned by Apollo 12 that are nearly identical to samples returned by Soviet Luna 16.

So if the Apollo mission was faked, the soil samples would have been vastly different to the samples brought back by the Russians.

As for why NASA didn't send robotic probes, you would have to ask them that, but they did send unmanned probes, such as the Ranger's.









[edit on 2/5/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Devino
 


No other nations have been able to see the Apollo landers.

Not even the Mighty Soviet Union who some allege would 'blow the whistle on the whole thing' - they couldn't take a picture of the landers... even if they were there.

Apparently only American spacecraft can see the Apollo landers, only the accused (NASA) can provide evidence that their spacecraft are present. No third-party substantiation has been forthcoming.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


Chandrayaan, India´s moon probe, also took pictures of Apollo 15´s site.

Story


Read up.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join