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: 20
377
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hateeternal
 


Here is another quote from your "smoking gun" article.




But Nasa confirmed to the Sunday Express that they also contain the video data of the Apollo 11 landing.
“We’re talking about the same tapes,” a Nasa spokesman said when challenged. Perhaps unhappy that a secret they had planned to grandly announce in three weeks had been rumbled, he added: “At this point, I’m not prepared to discuss what has or has not been found.
“The research team is preparing its final report and we’ll release those findings publicly in the coming weeks.”
When asked for an interview with the research team, the Nasa official appeared to give the game away. “Sure,” he said, “although we’re not likely to scoop ourselves on much.”


Link to quote.

So where are the tapes.

This is simply a NASA spokesman saying "Yes, we have found them"...
(Albeit 40 YEARS LATER)

But yet I have provided information that they DID NOT find them.

I also provided a link that NASA lied about a "moon rock" that they gave to the Dutch National Museum.

So, either one of two things is going on, either NASA lies or they are incredibly incompetent.
But somehow not so incompetent that they can send men to the moon with 1968 technology and nail that **** every single time.
But for some reason we did not send anyone else back to the moon with the same 1968 technology, NOR DID any other country since...
With our 1968 technology.

I am not, at all, surprised to see this "well we have the tapes now" mea culpa.

Apparently the link that I provided from Dave McGowan ruffled some serious feathers at NASA.
This link was posted before NASA "found" these mysterious tapes again.

Just as I continue to ruffle feathers here.

Now let me make a point about evidence.

There is this little thing that is required in a court of law.

It's called the "chain of command".
And if NASA had "lost" these video tapes for like...

40 YEARS....

Then they would not stand up in a court of law.

Sorry, but this only shows me how incredibly incompetent NASA can be, and it makes me them that much more suspect.
(But, once again, not so incompetent to send men to the moon with 1968 technology and nail that **** every single time)

This just begs the question....
Why do we have so much trouble sending people into low earth orbit?

Keep on with the ad hoc hypothesis my disillusioned friend.

It is truly entertaining to watch you guys squirm for an answer.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I made a conclusion, and i'm going to research and get answers for myself.

But i'd like to say these last words,

If NASA has a secret then nothing of it will show up on media presented to the public, by the internet, tv or radio.

It's far to convenient for us from NASA to present all of it's findings so that we could go and figure out for ourselves what the secret is.

Further more. Lets imagine for a moment that the moon landings where proven to be fake. Go and use our brain for a second and think what will happen after it has been proven for 100% and nobody could proof other wise... It will not proof anything, because there nothing to see either way that would be considered a ground breaking discovery of aliens or secret space programs no...

It would be far more normal for the ones that are keeping a secret period to not do anything for the public. Just for themselves and keep that secret.

Nasa for all I care could be the theme park for the public and scientists that are not in on the real secret. While the people involved in the real secret ( if there is really such a thing ) can just go along undisturbed. Because where to busy with NASSA hoaxes and stuff.

Think about it, it justs never seams to stop does it? and nothing other then debunked theories and debunked hoaxers are revealed not anything more.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal


they were done with a closed circuit camera and the only "live" video feed was at NASA.


Wrong!!!

When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64 metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64 metre dish at Parkes. In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture. A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast. For a comprehensive explanation of the TV reception of the Apollo 11 broadcast.

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...


[edit on 2-5-2010 by hateeternal]


So then could you please explain this comment from the article that was posted intent on de-bunking ME.



Instead, a poor quality copy made from a 16mm camera pointing at a heavily compressed image on a black and white TV screen has been the only record of the event.


Link to quote.

It seems as though you guys who wish to debunk me are contradicting one another...

I would suggest some quick U2U's in order to form a more appropriate game plan.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Hi,
I think what he's referring to is

"the only "live" video feed was at NASA. ",

I think what you meant to say is "the only "live" video feed (that was recorded on video) was at NASA. ",...I could be wrong......

just a misunderstanding I think..... possibly

Peace



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I watched his C Rock and proton 4 hoax videos. From what I see his claims hold no water. After watching 2 that were full of bad science and wild asusmptions I gave up on him. He's a typical conspiracy theorist, a hypocrite who criticizes the "propagandists" for using the same tactics he does. He also based all of his conclusions on the reflectivity of portland cement but mythbusters mixed it with charcoal. Bad science kid.

Just another half hour wasted watching another guy attempt to prove the lunar landing was a hoax.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I wanted to post saying that I am perfectly aware that these "videos" were made public.

I am waiting on someone to post a link, so that I can begin the conversation about the radiation issue, which is the CORE of my argument.

When one looks at the high def images of the lander on the moon, I implore you to consider the amount of shielding used on the moon lander.

After looking at the hi def images of the incredibly poorly shielded astronauts and lander, one must ask the question.

Why are NASA's scientists so worried about radiation NOW?

They apparently used very little, if any, protection back in the day.

Why not just use more of the same type of protection that we used back then?

THAT WAS USED IN 1968.

Hmmmmmmm........

Maybe it is because we have never been to the moon in the manner that was propagandized to the people in 1968.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrddin Wyllt
 


You are correct.

Thank you for helping me clear that up.

The reason that I am making this point is kind of sneaky, so I refer you to my previous post.

I will post a link to the high def images if my opponents fail to do so.

Once again, thank you for clearing up my mis-statements.

When I get heated, I do have a tendency to open mouth and insert foot.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


What part of "3 days are shorter than several months" Is hard to understand?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I can't believe that people still try and say we did not go to the moon. We have pictures of the landers. We have samples we brought back. We have independent corroboration of outside agencies. We went. Many times. Get over it. And seriously, Josephus...do a little basic research before you waste anyone else's time please...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by Josephus23
 


What part of "3 days are shorter than several months" Is hard to understand?


If you guys want to respond with the same tired memes that are repeated over and over, then fine.

But as I have shown, on numerous occasions, we DO NOT KNOW how much radiation someone would be exposed to on the surface of the moon, because....

We didn't begin mapping the radiation until 1998-99.

The radiation is a very specific type of radiation called neutron radiation, which can be high or low, and high neutron radiation is deadly.

I will repeat this quote from the article.



The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.


[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaffo
I can't believe that people still try and say we did not go to the moon. We have pictures of the landers. We have samples we brought back. We have independent corroboration of outside agencies. We went. Many times. Get over it. And seriously, Josephus...do a little basic research before you waste anyone else's time please...


Argument ad hominem.

PROVE my information wrong.

Prove that my points make no sense.

I seem to have more critical thinkers on this thread agreeing with me than not, and I think that it is freaking some folks out.

Cheers.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I already addressed your radiation issue, with YOUR OWN link. I proved that your own sources confirm that Humans can be on the surface for a few days with no serious issues.


Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


One proof.

The surface of the moon is radioactive.


Excerpt from that article:
"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

Yup, again...that is YOUR source. Confirming that Apollo Astronauts would have suffered no serious radiation issues.

This is YOUR OWN source telling you that few days is okay. Are you going to accuse YOUR OWN source of throwing a meme at you? Like you just accused debunky of doing when he mention a few days on the Moon?

Since your "lynch pin" is that radiation would have killed the Astronauts, and YOUR OWN source says otherwise. You must admit that radiation wasn't an issue for the Apollo Astronauts.

If you don't then your only reason for being here, is to troll everyone and accuse them of things you don't even understand like circular reasoning, or cognitive dissonance.

How much longer are you going to keep pretending otherwise?

The current "worries" about radiation, are due to the fact that we will be there long-term. Radiation accumulates in the body over time. This is elementary school science, and I don't understand how someone smart enough to use a computer doesn't get it.

We can't just "use more of the same" material's because that raises the weight and cost of a launch. I don't understand why you seem to have trouble understanding such things, but there it is.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This is like trying to disprove the bible with the only source of info being the bible?

Circular questioning never resolves anything.
In the end....who cares? Eventually the technology will be obvious.
We know they lie and lie and lie so I would be a fool to believe anything they say.
You want to believe they went there, then theirs nothing going to change that.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Josephus 23 makes many good points that are not so easily dismissed. Good for him that he holds his ground in the face of the many attacks using unsound logic.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


How can even my own sources say that they know anything about the radiation on the surface of the moon?
(My own source is the apparently highly incompetent NASA by the way...)

They did not begin to map the radiation on the surface of the moon until 1998-99. (actually they didn't REALLY begin to map it in detail until last year)

The only data that would be available to inform the scientists as to what would be long term exposure and what would be short term exposure was gathered on the moon landings in question.

And I will repeat this one more time.

If we are debating the legitimacy of the moon landings, then it is impossible to say that "the men who went to the moon only received minimal exposure because the data that they recovered showed that they received minimal exposure".

That is circular reasoning.

We did not begin mapping the surface radiation found on the moon until 1998-99.

And the LEND was sent up in the LRO in 2009, so we have NO IDEA where any of this radiation is located.

You did not debunk anything.

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Once again, I will take a break from this thread and let all of this sink in for the hopefully many readers...

And let all of you haters out there trash me personally.

I think that I am winning more converts than you "believers" in the moon landings.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Thank you my friend.

I am grateful that you are giving my points their due diligence.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus


I think JRA explained this, the probe can collect small amounts of soil, whereas the manned missions allowed them to collect larger amounts of soil and rock.


Nope, JRA offered his opinion and you agree with that. Japan makes better VCRs than we do in the US. Does that mean that their VCRs are made by Humans and ours are made by crappy rovers?

So, we built bigger and better probes than the SU did. Really trying to tell me that you believe we were able to get people to the moon and back when no one else could but there is no way we could have just sent bigger and better automated devices?

Can you or JRA offer anything that would make that any more than an opinion?


The Apollo astronauts also carried out many experiments whilst on the moon, most of those couldn't be carried out remotely.


Really? Ones you witnessed first hand? Perhaps you have seen the results and compared with your notes from when you did the same experiments when you were on the moon?


Erm...?


"ERM?" What the hell is an erm? Was the question too hard? I simple asked how Russia obtained their soil and rock samples. I am pretty sure you know this one. Why is it causing you to stroke out and say things like "erm?"

Look, I am simply asking questions. I have not told anyone they are lying, wrong, full of crap. I have not declared anything fake or real. I am asking questions. If my questions toss such a wrench into your system, I would suggest moving on.



It makes perfect sense, moon soil and rock is different to earth soil and rock, so if the Apollo landings were faked then they would have had to use soil and rocks from earth.


You obviously do not get it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Why do you assume they would have had to use rocks and soil from Earth if they faked the moon landings? How are you missing the fact that Russia had samples too without even trying to fake sending men to the moon.

How is this too confusing for you? Obviosuly is samples can be obtained without sending men to the moon - AND THEY CAN - then I see no reason to use anything but real samples from the moon to pass off a lie about sending men.

The reason it really makes no sense is because you already acknowledged twice that other people got samples without men and yet you have no idea how the US could have gotten samples without sending men?

If you are just looking to argue in favor of the moon landings, you are dealing with the wrong person. If you cannot answer my questions, that is fine. Move along. If your own words are going to keep tripping you up as you try to argue with me because I dare ask something, please move along.

If you think that you can actually make sense when you responde to me, I would love to hear your answers. I am not looking to convince anyone anything or be proven right or wrong. I am just asking questions. So far they really seem to have bothered you to the point of contradicting yourself in order to get all "Erm"y with me. Relax.

There is also the fact someone else mentioned about the US going around giving out pieces of petrified wood as moon rocks so you know, there is a little doubt as to just how many real moon rocks were actually retrieved anyway but that is a whole other deal, I am sure.


this obviously isn't the case because the Luna samples resemble the Apollo samples.


Are you just being like this on purpose? Again, you are going to say they must have been retrieved by men because they compare to the ones obtained by robots? You really do not see the huge hole in that logic?


I'll add here too that to suggest otherwise would imply that Russia and the USA were in on it together....during the middle of the Cold War.


It might imply that to you but it does not prove that. Again, it is nice that you folks have ideas and opinions. You should. Unfortunately, your ideas and passing thoughts are not facts.

Can you prove Russia could not have been fooled? Can you prove Russia and the US were not in on it together? Seriously, how far of a stretch is it to believe they were working together to control us? Right now we are in year 9 of a war with countries we ship money and weapons to that are used against us. This is reality now so I guess I need someone to prove to me that either Russia could not have been fooled or that Russia was really such a mortal enemy that they would blow the whistle. Sure it makes sense but so do many other ideas. Lots of things make sense. I would like some facts though so thanks anyway.



So I miss read part of your post, my bad, it happens.


Actually you lashed out at me about something I never said. I guess "my bad" really means "I am sorry for giving you crap about something you did not say?"

OK, thanks for that heartfelt apology.


No need to write a monologue about it.


Yeah, you are not paying attention. Only the first line was a response to that one part. That is why it was the end of that paragraph. The rest of what you quoted was just the rest of my post, not the rest of my response to your misquote. If you read the words in there, you would have seen that.

Now you prove you do not like to pay close attention, have no eye for detail, and either do not understand or do not bother to read much of what you respond to. Tell me again why you will be qualified to give me answers again?



You're right, the Russian probes prove there was no need to send men to the moon, providing the only thing you wanted to collect was 326 grams of soil and a coupe of photos.


Oh, so you can prove that the only types of probes anyone could have built were the same as the ones Russia built and sent? Can you show me this proof or do you just think repeating your opinions will convince me they are true?


Fortunately, NASA wanted to carry out a few more experiments, as I alluded to earlier.


Right, and you can prove they did these experiments how?

H

ave a look into the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package

Lot's of experiments with hard data to back it up.


Hard data huh? Do you know what data is? Data is the stuff you right down. I am pretty sure we can write stuff down on Earth.

How about you pick one or more that obviously could not have been faked or made up? Can you?

Before you respond. Take a deep breath and relax. Now read my post again. I am just asking questions. If you feel you need to get upset and take them personally, I would suggest you are the wrong person to answer them.

Thanks for trying though.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Byteman
 


How can even my own sources say that they know anything about the radiation of the surface of the moon?
(My own source is the apparently highly incompetent NASA by the way...)

They did not begin to map the radiation on the surface of the moon until 1998-99. (actually they didn't REALLY begin to map it in detail until last year)

The only data that would be available to inform the scientists as to what would be long term exposure and what would be short term exposure was gathered on the moon landings in question.


How? The article was written on Sept 2005. 6-7 years after 98-99.

Your evaluations of NASA's competency are irrelevant.

Since the article was written in 2005, years after they started mapping lunar radiation. They had that data available to them.


Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Byteman
 

And I will repeat this one more time.

If we are debating the legitimacy of the moon landings, then it is impossible to say that "the men who went to the moon only received minimal exposure because the data that they recovered showed that they received minimal exposure".


I have NOT claimed that my conclusions about Lunar surface radiation, came from the astronauts themselves. In fact, I have clearly stated that my conclusions come from CURRENT data and YOUR OWN source. Which clearly states that a few days on the Moon won't lead to serious radiation issues.

So, once more you've proven that you really don't understand either my argument, circular reasoning, or both.


Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Byteman
 

We did not begin mapping the surface radiation found on the moon until 1998-99.

And the LEND was sent up in the LRO in 2009, so we have NO IDEA where any of this radiation is located.


This is a contradiction. Either we starting mapping the radiation in 98-99, or we had "NO IDEA" (unmapped) until the LRO was launched in 09.


Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Byteman
 

You did not debunk anything.


You say that, as if you were the final authority on such matters. It's too bad for you that YOUR OWN source, debunked you before you could really even begin.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
That petrified wood was a misunderstanding on either the former Netherlands PM or some one at the Museum. It was a private gift from the US Ambassador to the former PM. No one gets Lunar samples as private gifts. Plus this happened in 1969 shortly after the Apollo 11 landing. NASA didn't give out samples until after Apollo 17 in 1972.


I keep seeing people try and explain this away but none of you have been able to explain why any embassador from the US would be giving out petrified wood as a gift to begin with. Can you?


The samples they gave out were very small and encased clear plastic. They weighed between 0.05g and 1.1g. The petrified wood was 98g and not encased in plastic. Even the most basic examination by any geologist would easily identify it as being nothing more than petrified wood.

It's clear that it was not meant to have fooled or deceived anyone, it's simply a misunderstanding on some ones part. There is, however, a museum in the Netherlands that does have an actual Lunar sample that was given to them officially by NASA in 1972.


What was the misunderstanding? Can you elaborate? Who said what to whom that made this misunderstanding happen?

Again, I have to ask - why did we hand out petrified wood to anyone?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join