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: 235
377
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Here's a very special link for FoosM and any of the other dwindling apollo deniers:

I Give Up: The Apollo moon missions were UN-fakeable

Yes, another denier sees the light.




No wait... wait a second



Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.

So his whole scenario falls apart because he cant figure out how they shot
the footage of the astronauts in weightless environment?

Hmmm... lets see, did they send the actors of Apollo 13 the movie, out to the moon and back too?




posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.


You could start here or here. There is much more detailed information elsewhere if you're interested. Have you ever figured out how they could have faked it using 1960's technology?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Here's a very special link for FoosM and any of the other dwindling apollo deniers:
I Give Up: The Apollo moon missions were UN-fakeable

Yes, another denier sees the light.

(childish smilies removed)
No wait... wait a second
(childish smilies removed)
Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.
So his whole scenario falls apart because he cant figure out how they shot
the footage of the astronauts in weightless environment
?
Hmmm... lets see, did they send the actors of Apollo 13 the movie, out to the moon and back too?
(childish smilies removed)

His 'whole scenario'? You didn't read very much of that, did you..

FoosM, has it ever occurred to you that the reason that you have been abandoned on this thread is the ridiculous smilies, the sarcastic attitude, the non-points, the circular arguments, the lack of research, the lack of any understanding of the science involved, and the lack of basic common sense? Oh, and the spam and trolling..

Anyway, just a thought... Exuberant should be along shortly to give you a star...

Edited to add:
Yep, there it is, but I was wrong. It was ppk55 - Hi PPK! Not saying much since the debunked vlt stuff, I see...
edit on 1-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: oh, you'll work it out..



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
On June 6, 2010, Pezza wrote the following:


Originally posted by pezza
i am probably one of the top particle scientists in australia on the basis of publication output and patents in the last 5 years.


I then asked him/her...


Originally posted by ppk55
Hi and welcome pezza. Maybe you can help with this query from Jarrah's video
'Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly part 16'. I would however suggest watching them all as there are some very good questions.

I'm most interested in Eleanor Blakely's comments that particles fragment when they hit aluminium shielding, resulting in more particles inside than outside.



I'm quite interested in how they survived the radiation in space.


Pezza then responded...


Originally posted by pezza
Sure, happy to provide some insight here. Because i am on an iphone i cant view the vid just yet. Can you post a summary of those questions here? I need some context on what these particles are, size, composition etc.


Well, now that you have normal internet access Pezza, can you comment please.



Originally posted by CHRLZ
Hi PPK! Not saying much since the debunked vlt stuff, I see...
edit on 1-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: oh, you'll work it out..


Oh and chrlz, sorry to be away so long, some of us do get up to other things during our lives.
Never fear, I'm back for a bit. And when you say 'debunked' ... by whom? you ? hehe.

edit again: I'm also working on my signature, getting it ready for 2011.
edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: added response to having the audacity to not post every day + sig



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
[Radiation stuff deleted, as covered earlier. getting mighty sick of circular arguments]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Hi PPK! Not saying much since the debunked vlt stuff, I see...
edit on 1-11-2010 by CHRLZ because: oh, you'll work it out..

Oh and chrlz, sorry to be away so long, some of us do get up to other things during our lives.
Never fear, I'm back for a bit. And when you say 'debunked' ... by whom? you ? hehe.

Laugh it up, ppk. The VLT thing has been covered endlessly also, and is completely IRRELEVANT to the fact that the Apollo missions happened as reported. It's about as fascinating as your theories about the politics. Do explain in detail how a claim about some telescope's potential resolution affected a mission that took place decades earlier,. And while you are at it, please quote the figures. What was the claimed resolution? (Be vewwy vewwy careful, ppk, it's another trap...)


edit again: I'm also working on my signature, getting it ready for 2011.

Oh, thank heavens. I was so worried it would go out of date. BTW, why doesn't it include supersonic air travel?

And why *should* we have returned after Apollo? To throw money away? To mine the .. (insert favorite theory here, along with costings)? To ....? Go on, you tell us. Why go back? And if political issues are important, can you point directly at the huge groundswell of opinion wanting the US to return..? And why was Apollo stopped?

Take your time, but please answer all questions. I still have the long list of ones you have avoided, and I trust you don't want it to get any longer before I repost it... I'll be repeating the items in bold each time they are not fully answered. If it gets unwieldy, don't worry, I'll number 'em for you.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Oh, and by the way, ppk.... when you left, you referred to an email you sent to Dr Richard West.

Questions:
1. Did you get a reply?
2. What email address did you send it to?
3. If you did get a reply, would you care to post it, in full?


Now, ppk, before you answer this, think about why I would ask....

Yes, it could well be another trap...



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(Be vewwy vewwy careful, ppk, it's another trap...)


You and the word 'trap' seem to occur quite frequently.
Everyone, try it, use the word 'trap' and 'young aussie genius' and the poster 'chrlz' and this is how many results you will get...


edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: edit: corrected search terms



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(Be vewwy vewwy careful, ppk, it's another trap...)


You and the word 'trap' seem to occur quite frequently.
Everyone, try it, use the word 'trap' and the poster 'chrlz' and this is how many results you will get...



edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: formatting


ASTONISHING RESEARCH SKILLS, there ppk. Sadly, I DID see the first screenshot you posted. That was a bit embarrassing. Would you like to tell everyone why you so quickly replaced it??? Or shall we ask the moderators?


Seriously, ppk, I would suggest you take a little more time before replying.

Oh, and you should have deleted the image... But I have a copy now, so if you do, I'll just repost it..




posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
ASTONISHING RESEARCH SKILLS, there ppk. Sadly, I DID see the first screenshot you posted.


Um, that's why I added an edit comment. Do you deny you made all those 'TRAP' remarks above ?
Do you want me to post the second page ?

edit: I'm assuming this is the last we'll be hearing of you snaring someone into one of your 'traps'

edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: added second page comment + the last we'll be hearing.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
ASTONISHING RESEARCH SKILLS, there ppk. Sadly, I DID see the first screenshot you posted.


Um, that's why I added an edit comment. Do you deny you made all those 'TRAP' remarks above ?
Do you want me to post the second page ?
edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: added second page comment

Let's just summarise - your first screenshot showed the name of a poster "Better Mouse Trap", and my name nearby, which has nothing to do with me setting a trap. (there, I SAID IT AGAIN!!!!).

Now, just before I answer your question, let me ask you:

How is it that you would post a screenshot, that ONLY shows ONE COMPLETELY WRONGLY attributed search result, and claim it was some sort of useful evidence? Were you wrong in doing that? Did you then try to cover it up hoping that no-one would notice? If not, why didn't you simply acknowledge your error with a chuckle and post the correction? That's what I would do.. (but I didn't make the mistake, YOU did..)

Now, to answer your question, IN FULL, yes, most of those search results on that first page are mine. Not all, at least one is a comment made by someone else. And of course many of them are repeated comments about the same issues.

So yes, I frequently post 'traps', where I believe someone is deliberately misleading these forums and will be caught out. And I also generally declare them! Not sure why that's a bad thing... You clearly don't like that, so I suggest you alert the moderators. Now if those traps contained lies, misleading information, or any other deception, you would have a case. So point to a trap I've set like that.

Or you could just answer the questions. If you answer them honestly, there won't be any problems -why would you be worried about being trapped?


Do take your time. I don't think anyone has noticed you are trying to avoid answering the ontopic questions...


And now to answer the question ppk AGAIN later edited into his post - No, it most certainly won't be the last time I set and declare a trap...

Now, any chance you will answer the questions...?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I think it's quite ingenious how you've deflected attention from the question I posted to pezza regarding the fact that aluminum shielding wouldn't have been adequate, as proven by one of NASA's own. You jumped in there right at the second I posted this question that dates back to the 6th June 2010.

Pezza, where are you to answer the the big question above ? It's been 5 months in the making.

edit: and yes, yes, I know another 'trap' will be set by you chrlz .. Can't wait.
edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: chrlz's trap



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Your question was to pezza, but don't worry, I'll get back to it.

But let's make this as simple as possible, and work backwards through the thread. ppk55, these are direct, ontopic questions, relating to your last appearance here. Please answer them.

Regarding the VLT and ppk55's claimed email to Dr Richard West
1. Did you get a reply?
2. What email address did you send it to?
3. If you did get a reply, would you care to post it, in full?


Thank you for helping deny ignorance.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Your question was to pezza, but don't worry, I'll get back to it.


Um. Freudien slip there ?
One and the same.
edit on 1-11-2010 by ppk55 because: one and the same



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
You seem to be avoiding chrlzs questions ppk, any specific reason for that?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Geez, they are really easy questions. Wonder why it's taking so long...


In comparison, to answer the one he threw at pezza - yet now very rudely wants me to answer - I'd have to do a transcript of what Eleanor Blakely said, and also what JW then claimed...

...

(slightly awkward (for ppk) pause for effect)

...

Well, ppk55, you'll be pleased to know that I've just made that transcript. And here it is:

JW: Eleanor Blakely, radiation biologist for the Life Sciences Division, Lawrence [sic] National Laboratory also spoke of using ethylene shielding as well as the possibility of shielding spacecrafts [sic] with its actual fuel tanks.

Q: Ah yes I'm just wondering if you could speak to ..how difficult it would be to shield a spacecraft or even a space suit against different types of radiation.

EB: Yes, you ask another good question. The only problem is that particles undergo a process called fragmentation, so if a particle comes in and hits like an aluminum shielding, it actually fragments into an array of particles of a lower atomic number so you actually have a higher fluence on the inside than you would have on the outside. So there's been a recent study by NASA of the materials of the spacecraft, because the hydrogenous materials like shielding, polyethylene shielding can reduce, just by the different Z of the impact of the ions coming in from space. So shielding has limitations from that point fo view, however I talked to an astronaut that.. his vision is that - of course what you want to do is minimise the exposure to Mars - so he's a big proponent of other kinds, alternative propulsion and he would like to put the propulsion material, which is hydrogenous, in big tanks around the spacecraft. Now that would really ruin your view but it certainly would shield you. And so they have lots of things under study just to examine different alternative shielding...

JW: Obviously Apollo could never have been shielded with its own propellants, as [sic] the majority of which was spent right at the beginning of the trip. It should also be noted that Apollo used aluminium shielding which, by Doctor Blakely's admission would increase the risk of particle fragmentation and thus worsen the radiation problem.


A quick note - we don't see what transpired before or after the Q&A so the context is not fully clear, however note the video title, and also the comments that show they were talking about potential Mars (ie very long) missions...
Now before I comment on it in detail (and believe me I have quite a lot more to say on this, especially that corker of a last sentence which contains so many misleading statements I think it sets a record..), ppk55, do you agree that it is an accurate transcript of the relevant section? Be specific, please.

It's late hereabouts, so I'm probably going to nod off now, but I shall be back. Others, please feel free to steal my thunder...


And did JW really say .. 'spacecrafts'? To quote ppk55 - "hehe".



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.


You could start here or here. There is much more detailed information elsewhere if you're interested. Have you ever figured out how they could have faked it using 1960's technology?


I dont get it, are you stating that that guy published those articles you linked?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Here's a very special link for FoosM and any of the other dwindling apollo deniers:
I Give Up: The Apollo moon missions were UN-fakeable

Yes, another denier sees the light.

(childish smilies removed)
No wait... wait a second
(childish smilies removed)
Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.
So his whole scenario falls apart because he cant figure out how they shot
the footage of the astronauts in weightless environment
?
Hmmm... lets see, did they send the actors of Apollo 13 the movie, out to the moon and back too?
(childish smilies removed)

His 'whole scenario'? You didn't read very much of that, did you..

FoosM, has it ever occurred to you that the reason that you have been abandoned on this thread is the ridiculous smilies, the sarcastic attitude, the non-points, the circular arguments, the lack of research, the lack of any understanding of the science involved, and the lack of basic common sense? Oh, and the spam and trolling..


No... thats not me. You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho.

And I again, like the waste of thread space on the previous page about an off topic conspiracy about ATS bots, what does this post have to do with the fake moon landing? Where is the be all end all radiation compendium? Where is the debunking? Or the proof that we went?

Here is a challenge, how about you guys methodically go over JW's video and go video by video and point out where he is wrong. This could have been done a while ago, but I haven't seen any Apollogists go into such deep analysis:

For example, this one which has to do with, were they really in space?:


on all the moon flights NASA found ways to degrade and or limit the amount of footage they had to fake; and any hint of zero gravity in the Apollo 15 CSM telecasts always seem to last 30seconds or less.


The observation:
None of the footage publicly provided proves they were in space, or if they were, past LEO.

The challenge:
Find a video that absolutely could not have been staged as proof.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh man I just cant hold back the laughter.
I like to see this guy come up with a scenario on how
the US could actually land on the moon with 1960's tech.


You could start here or here. There is much more detailed information elsewhere if you're interested. Have you ever figured out how they could have faked it using 1960's technology?


I dont get it, are you stating that that guy published those articles you linked?


According to Merriam Webster a Scenario is

: a sequence of events especially when imagined;
: an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events

You cant make a scenario for Apollo being done with 60ies technology, since it was obviously done with 60ies technology.
Of course before Apollo there were scenarios. For example the russians envisioned a slightly different course of action.
But now that we have the documentation of the events, it's rather silly to make scenarios, unless you want to write alternative history fiction.
But the "what if" can't be 60ies technology, since that is what would be used, anyway.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Here is a challenge, how about you guys methodically go over JW's video and go video by video and point out where he is wrong. This could have been done a while ago, but I haven't seen any Apollogists go into such deep analysis:


"Two elderly women are at a Catskills mountain resort and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "I know, and such small portions."
- Woody Allen, Annie Hall.

The only nice thing you can say about Jarrah's work that I've seen is that there's rather a lot of it. Unfortunately quantity isn't going to improve the situation any; bad food is bad food. Taking Jarrah's videos apart one by one is just an exercise in stupidity and it would be never ending; in the end it would only serve Jarrah's ends in promoting his videos and his money making efforts.

If Jarrah had any reasonable points he wouldn't be taking every tiny piece of conjecture or guess at his finger tips. He would be preventing a reasonable level of evidence and only present the points he thought were absolutely valid. Whilst you periodically distance yourself from Jarrah, Foos, you have to see that this thread is about Jarrah White. Not FoosM. Therefore this is the same Jarrah White that thinks NASA provided the technology for 9/11. The same Jarrah who conducted an experiment in his bed room to simulate the moon. The same Jarrah who presented a creative arts teacher as an expert in perspective.

There are plenty of piles of information debunking Jarrah. In fact to find something that hasn't been thoroughly debunked is quite difficult. You shouldn't have to shovel through the pile to find something useful to debate over. Going through his videos one by one would just be pretending that he is a good scientist or that he maybe has a point.

You wouldn't stand at a street corner arguing with a person who thought the world was flat requesting you to provide complete evidence to the contrary, why would you debate with Mister White?

As for finding video that can't be staged ... according to you there is no such thing that cannot be staged in media. Therefore, again, it is a pointless conversation. Welcome to the street corner.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Who said hes alone?
OP clearly says he has all the documents he needs. Someone is handing him this and the Aussie is just a good debater.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join