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: 23
377
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No Mate that's all for now you read my mind


Everything has been so bashed before and is getting boring......

I the same are sick and tired of the same Ol same Ol.

Jarrah White has in some of his videos good presentation to his points.

anyway they have been round the traps before.YAWN


Ocker




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

www.youtube.com...


You regularly upload videos that are viewed by thousands of YouTube users, or you publish popular or commercially successful videos in other ways (such as DVDs sold online).


Well by that criteria he would qualify.



You own or have express permission to use and monetize all audio and video content that you upload—no exceptions.


By that not so much.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
See, I don't really feel 100% satisfied with your answer, though... can you share some of these faked images with me? Why release a fake image rather than no image at all? And how, exactly, were they faked? The geography of the Moon seems consistent across numerous different sources... was there some committee back in the 60s that sat down and decided where each and every crater on the side of the moon which faces away from Earth was located? How do they enforce consistency?

There's also the fact that, even if every picture they've ever shown us was faked, that doesn't mean they didn't go to the Moon. They definitely shot something into space on board all those rockets, and they got a bunch of instruments, mirrors and whatnot up there somehow.

My big beef with the whole MoonTruth thing is their lack of positive evidence. Their arguments consist almost entirely of their attempts to find evidence of faking in NASA videos and photographs; little attention is given to the matter of where those rockets went, or how those mirrors got up there, and I still haven't heard anyone argue against the fact that we have the technology to get to the Moon, at all.

I could fake a bunch of pictures of President Obama, but that wouldn't mean he didn't get elected.

Ocker, what do you think about the idea that we did go to the moon, and that they edited those pictures or videos to hide something they found there? This isn't what I believe, personally; I have faith, where reason allows, in the honesty of the scientific community, and in its stated goal of advancing Human understanding.

Although individuals can be compromised, bought, manipulated, and fooled, I really can't believe that every scientist that has ever worked for NASA would not only agree to help the Federal government maintain this public charade, but actually do it, forever. Every single one of them would have had to be highly and personally motivated to do so; imagine the money to be made by the first one to come clean with a tell-all book and irrefutable evidence. Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by ocker

You beat me to this Weedwacker and no you did not miss anything You tube is the profiteer not the user


Trolls anyone



I'm not trolling at all, you can make money from youtube and some people do. You can gain money by views of your videos if you have videos with enough views (read over a couple hundred thousand views per video).

So no, not trolling, just stating fact. I also stated that the guy doesn't have enough views to make money so again, how was that trolling?

Deny ignorance instead of just calling troll

[edit on 2-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


My apologies for jumping to conclusions by calling you a troll.It was just the lack of comments in regard to Jarrah's video themselves and the points he brings up that got me thinking that way.

Taken back


Ocker



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ocker

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by ocker

You beat me to this Weedwacker and no you did not miss anything You tube is the profiteer not the user


Trolls anyone



I'm not trolling at all, you can make money from youtube and some people do. You can gain money by views of your videos if you have videos with enough views (read over a couple hundred thousand views per video).

So no, not trolling, just stating fact. I also stated that the guy doesn't have enough views to make money so again, how was that trolling?

Deny ignorance instead of just calling troll

[edit on 2-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


My apologies for jumping to conclusions by calling you a troll.It was just the lack of comments in regard to Jarrah's video themselves and the points he brings up that got me thinking that way.

Taken back


Ocker


I think on page 4 is my first post which contains a very long run down of problems with the youtube videos, you can go back and read it if you like. I watched the videos the OP provided. One of the most classically stupid moments of said videos is when he thinks he can discount the effects of static electricity on the flag by rubbing a balloon on his head and passing it near a flag. Forgetting he's on a planet with more gravity than the Moon and is surrounded by air.

The guy is a joke.

EDIT

If you think he has some good points then please raise them so they can be addressed. If they haven't been already.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ocker
It was just the lack of comments in regard to Jarrah's video themselves and the points he brings up that got me thinking that way.


And yet just above, you refuse to be specific about the 'good' points and the refutations.

Is there not some hypocrisy there? You laud his videos, but when asked to be specific, you decline. Then tell others off for the 'lack of comments'...



FTR, *I* refuted the first video posted in the OP back here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about commenting on my comments?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


"CHRLZ"

Valiant attempt, mate....I look forward to your next.

Unfortunately, we are ( in some instances ) "preaching to the choir" here.

It is sad. Truly.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram


Ocker, what do you think about the idea that we did go to the moon, and that they edited those pictures or videos to hide something they found there? This isn't what I believe, personally; I have faith, where reason allows, in the honesty of the scientific community, and in its stated goal of advancing Human understanding.

Although individuals can be compromised, bought, manipulated, and fooled, I really can't believe that every scientist that has ever worked for NASA would not only agree to help the Federal government maintain this public charade, but actually do it, forever. Every single one of them would have had to be highly and personally motivated to do so; imagine the money to be made by the first one to come clean with a tell-all book and irrefutable evidence. Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.


Hi again Parallelogram
As I have stated I believe we have been to the Moon no question about that many times. There is some sort of cover up to what has been filmed and the scenery staged in some of the Images for unknown other purposes.
YES they have found things that have prompted them to manipulate images . There is plenty of oddities to be found in NASA's images form their archives from other missions as well.


I really can't believe that every scientist that has ever worked for NASA would not only agree to help the Federal government maintain this public charade, but actually do it, forever. Every single one of them would have had to be highly and personally motivated to do so; imagine the money to be made by the first one to come clean with a tell-all book and irrefutable evidence.


I concur too many people to manipulate even the Janitor and the cleaners I don't think so I am sure one of them would of spoken out by now..

This does not explain the oddities that can be seen, and I am at a loss to why also, check some of the guys videos out to get an idea what he is talking about www.youtube.com.../u/142/lMuTiziCszU

Thanks

Ocker



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

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.


I actually talked to a Russian friend of mine and her and some of her friends don't believe we actually been to the moon. She is an Astrophysicist. I wasn't surprised when she told me the answer. But the radiation is the key to this thing being a hoax and a good one at that.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Thank you for talking to your friends.

I have spoken with other Russians as well about this same issue and they tell me the exact same thing.
The reason that the Russians did not even attempt to send someone to the moon was due to one very big issue....

Radiation.

And it is consequently the major reason that we have yet to go back to the moon....
With our 1968 technology.

Or why no one else has been back to the moon...
With out 1968 technology.

Or why NASA is so worried about radiation...

Why not just use more of whatever we supposedly used in 1968...

That would be 40 years ago.

Great addition my friend.

Oh snap....
Sorry for the double comment on you comment page dragnet53.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


"CHRLZ"

Valiant attempt, mate....I look forward to your next.

Unfortunately, we are ( in some instances ) "preaching to the choir" here.

It is sad. Truly.


You want me to endure another? I'm not sure I could stand it.

And frankly, when you have 'ocker's and 'exuberant's who simply spam this hoaxer's work WITHOUT commenting on precisely what they think is so convincing, then why should I bother?

Yes, it's sad, and the hypocrisy is at record levels hereabouts..

Having said all that, I will be back later to discuss Exuberant's Frank Byrne 'quote'...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Uh huh....wow....you have actually TALKED to someone, from Russia, who was alive back in the 1960s??


I actually talked to a Russian friend of mine and her and some of her friends don't believe we actually been to the moon.


Oh. I see. Well, that's certainly definitive. Have anything else?


She is an Astrophysicist.


Huh? Is that an excuse, or a compliment? Can't tell which.

Ever try exposing her (the "Astrophysicist") to some of the DOZENS (charitably) of books on the topic of the USA space program? OR, the so-called 'space race', as it pertains to the era of the "cold war" paradigm, back then...AND compare it to the actual, factual information that was revealed AFTER the USSR failed, and the full extent of the Soviet "bluff" in space was revealed??

THIS SORT OF information is very, very available, if one just bothers to research into it.

The USSR, in many of their "stunts" as propaganda in the "space race" were, frankly...."stunts".

The USA could NOT reveal that they knew of this deception, because to do so would have revealed their top-secret unmanned satellite program already in place....and other ways of obtaining intel. THIS is fully available, in books and other reference materials, if you bother to search.

USA was WAY, way ahead of the USSR....because USSR was plotting 'stunts', while NASA was following a planned progressive approach.

The actual 'Cosmonauts' of the day applauded the efforts of the Apollo Astronauts...look this up, too. There was envy, there.....

Remember the "historic first" when USSR put the first 'woman' into orbit?

They selected this poor custodian woman, who was NOT trained as a "Cosmonaut", and used her as a propaganda tool. She was TERRIFIED the entire time...BUT, she was compelled to read a scripted speech, whilst on orbit...for the propaganda....

This is not secret, anymore. WAS then, not now.

Go out. Open your eyes, and LEARN!!!!










[edit on 2 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

The lack of knowledge about the history of space travel is appalling. Here is a primer.
www.fas.org...

The Russians had a very active lunar landing program. They were intent on beating the US to the Moon. The reason they didn't get there is because their vehicle, the N-1, failed repeatedly. Once the Americans had successfully made it several times, the Russian program lost political support.



[edit on 5/2/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Ok...
You keep saying that high neutron radiation is deadly.
Well, so is water and many, many other things.

It isnt a meme.
You keep saying 3 days of radiation exposure on the moon should have killed the astronauts.

Evidence against that:
Data from your article saying 3 days are no problem.
No radioactive corpses in the LEM nor CM.

Again: Wich part don't you understand
3 days is shorter than several months.
Neutron radiation kills, if you are subjected to it for a long period (longer than 3 days) of time.
Yes, we didn't know if 3 days of exposure would kill the astronauts back in 1967, we took a guess (and guessed high) and were right.
Do you propose columbus should have waited till somebody discovered a westpassage to the indies, before going?

1969: 3 days, max. how much radiation: Guessed. Short exposure.
2004 proposal: permanent presence. Data on how much radiation: Mapped

You do understand that lengtho of exposure is very critical when it comes to damage dealt by radiation?

So, one is longer than the other, and one has more data than the other. Where is more radiation per day?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Twelve pages ago, I asked the people that believe that we never went to the moon a question: why couldn't we have done so? What prevents us from achieving this using the technology at our disposal?

Nobody even made an attempt at answering my question. This is information that I would really like to have, and it would help me understand this movement a lot better... it might even help the ATS community take your claims more seriously.

If anyone representing this movement could please respond to this post, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.


So what prevents us from going to a nuclear blast site after the Abomb explodes? we don't have the technology to go through the heavy radiation of space.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
I actually talked to a Russian friend of mine and her and some of her friends don't believe we actually been to the moon. She is an Astrophysicist. I wasn't surprised when she told me the answer. But the radiation is the key to this thing being a hoax and a good one at that.


Oh, yeah. Your friend the Russian astrophysicist. Yeah, sure.. that all happened..


I CALL.
Rather than drop a highly supportive piece of made-up hearsay (just when the cause is getting flogged you suddenly make this claim - one you haven't raised before (funny that - did she just call you up?)), why don't you invite said astrophysicist over here. We'll ask her a few questions and see how she goes.

Anyway the radiation is an EASY one to deal with - what are 'her' figures and references? Surely you have read what has already transpired on this thread?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Uh huh....wow....you have actually TALKED to someone, from Russia, who was alive back in the 1960s??


I actually talked to a Russian friend of mine and her and some of her friends don't believe we actually been to the moon.


Oh. I see. Well, that's certainly definitive. Have anything else?


She is an Astrophysicist.


Huh? Is that an excuse, or a compliment? Can't tell which.

Ever try exposing her (the "Astrophysicist") to some of the DOZENS (charitably) of books on the topic of the USA space program? OR, the so-called 'space race', as it pertains to the era of the "cold war" paradigm, back then...AND compare it to the actual, factual information that was revealed AFTER the USSR failed, and the full extent of the Soviet "bluff" in space was revealed??

THIS SORT OF information is very, very available, if one just bothers to research into it.

The USSR, in many of their "stunts" as propaganda in the "space race" were, frankly...."stunts".

The USA could NOT reveal that they knew of this deception, because to do so would have revealed their top-secret unmanned satellite program already in place....and other ways of obtaining intel. THIS is fully available, in books and other reference materials, if you bother to search.

USA was WAY, way ahead of the USSR....because USSR was plotting 'stunts', while NASA was following a planned progressive approach.

The actual 'Cosmonauts' of the day applauded the efforts of the Apollo Astronauts...look this up, too. There was envy, there.....

Remember the "historic first" when USSR put the first 'woman' into orbit?

They selected this poor custodian woman, who was NOT trained as a "Cosmonaut", and used her as a propaganda tool. She was TERRIFIED the entire time...BUT, she was compelled to read a scripted speech, whilst on orbit...for the propaganda....

This is not secret, anymore. WAS then, not now.

Go out. Open your eyes, and LEARN!!!!





[edit on 2 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



I HAVE AND A LOT OF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

I have high IQ and high common sense and when both are going huh?!. Then my reaction is something doesn't look right.


BTW I have friends all over the world. She speaks English quite well. BTw love it when people get all frantic over something.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I want to reply to "Phage", and elaborate....because I may not have explained, adequately, in my previous post.

"Phage" is correct, about the Soviet-era "N-1" heavy-lift effort.

The USSR had great problems with that vehicle. Its first stage had a total of THIRTY rocket nozzles. To call that "complex" would seem an understatement. (Compared to the, no less complex in some respects, FIVE main engines of the Apollo Saturn V design...)

Point is, BOTH agencies, in designing the Lunar launch vehicles, knew that they had to lift a lot of mass, per the plan. In fact (and this is a guess) the Soviets were probably spying on NASA's plans.

BUT, here is how the various scenarios played out: ONE idea was the "EOR" concept, or "Earth Orbit Rendezvous".

This would mean that a few launches would occur, to rendezvous in Earth orbit, and assemble components, then this spacecraft, as assembled, would burn for Lunar Orbit Injection (LOI) and complete the mission.

The OTHER plan (and the one ultimately adopted by NASA) was the "LOR", or "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" concept. Was thought, early on (say, early 1960s) as the more risky approach of the two. Great debate, within NASA, ensued.

The GEMINI program was pivotal to show that the capability existed to complete orbital rendezvous with regularity.

The skills learned in earth orbit, with GEMINI, could be adapted to Lunar orbit. It is all a matter of math.

The Soviets had NOTIHNG to compare, with NASA's ability to rendezvous on orbit. THEY (Soviets) conducted 'stunts'...for propaganda. They (Soviets) suffered more DEATHS, at the time, as a result. Again, not made public back then, but later.

Apollo suffered, as a result of the Space Program testing only three fatalities, in the same period. THAT was the tragedy of "Apollo 1".

(OTHER Astronauts did die, but in accidents that were NOT directly related to Apollo, or to Gemini. AND, certainly not to Mercury). Two died in a plane crash, for iinstance. And, others in unrelated vehicle accidents, on the ground.

Some Astronauts were "disqualified" because of marital problems, at home....aka "divorces". (Didn't fit into the "squeaky-clean" image that NASA wished to promote...this being the 1960s, and all. So, 'conspriacy theorists'...THERE is your road into "behind the curtain" at NASA!!!).


Really....like I keep saying, a bit of research is going to lead to a LOT of information, more so than by just "doing the google".....



[edit on 2 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I am well aware of the N1 Rocket, but its failure was not the reason for their lack of a moon mission, or at least that is what a Russian physicist told me.

You see, the average Russian is much more acutely aware of propaganda than the average American.

The Russians knew that a trip to the moon was impossible.

They were aware of the radiation dangers before the US.

I mean they did beat us to orbit.

They beat us to a satellite.

They beat us to a manned space mission.

Heck, they beat us on just about everything.

Except the MOON.

The N1 rocket that they created was akin to the "Space Shuttle" that they created.
It was all propaganda.

It was a way of saving face when they knew good and well that a trip to the moon was impossible.

The only thing that they were unable to do is duplicate the propaganda that we created with these so called "moon landings" that you guys keep referencing.

Now...
I have never said anything about you is abysmal Phage.
I have never said anything negative about you.
As a matter of fact....
Several times I have given you "mad respect", but now I am sorry that I said it.

Personal attacks are no way to prove a point.

It is a characteristic of someone who is desperate, but it does not prove a point.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by ocker
It was just the lack of comments in regard to Jarrah's video themselves and the points he brings up that got me thinking that way.


And yet just above, you refuse to be specific about the 'good' points and the refutations.

Is there not some hypocrisy there? You laud his videos, but when asked to be specific, you decline. Then tell others off for the 'lack of comments'...



FTR, *I* refuted the first video posted in the OP back here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about commenting on my comments?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by CHRLZ]


Hi CHRLZ

first up NO I don't laud all of his videos as I have said he has some good points in certain videos for your understanding.

He has also had included input from professionals in photography to prove his findings in regard to lighting and shadow effects of some images in question.

Second I never said you have lacked comments in regard to his videos what are you the voice for others now?

I seen the post you have put forward and I agree that the flag video he put together is not a good argument and congratulate you on a good post.


lack of links or citations

I disagree with you on as he stated in the video where he got the film .and If you looked at some of his others he always without fail includes the book, Site, or Film or news paper he is referring to for his information presented. look at 2:37 in the flag video


He uses completely inappropriate 'analogies' and 'demonstrations'

How does he do this inappropriately ? is this your opinion from the flag video?

You by the sound of it have made your mind up on the one video you watched in which I agreed .

Anyway I had to laugh at this one Mate really laugh


JW presents the possible reasons (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?) for the movement, namely:
1. The astronaut brushed the pole and/or flag.
2. He kicked dirt against the pole
3. His foot 'pushed' a mound of regolith in such a way that it moved the pole
4. The vibration of his boots moved the pole and/or set up a resonance.
5. A static charge effect caused the flag to be attracted and/or repelled
6. There was an emission (eg from a pressure valve) on the astronauts suit or PLSS that impinged on the flag.



Proposed by another
you say.... sorry you could not be more WRONG

The said 6 reasons were put forward by no other than ERIC JONES
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal editor
history.nasa.gov...

I think we all have noticed your pattern here

Ocker




top topics



 
377
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join