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: 238
377
<< 235  236  237    239  240  241 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well then put your money where you mouth is and lets see a video of the astronauts getting off and on the LRV without help on the moon.


Not until we finish the geology portion of the exam. Do you concede that when you tried to claim that the total weight of the samples returned was greater than what was possible, you were proven definitively wrong? Do you concede that when you tried to make it appear that there was nowhere to stow the samples on the LM or CSM, you were proven definitively wrong? Do you admit that your claim that the samples were not documented properly was, well, not only wrong but both desperate and downright lazy? If you are willing to concede all that we might agree not to proceed to the geology debate. All of the points you raised were trivia about equipment. You have avoided the actual geology like the plague. You refuse to acknowledge that the difference between some lunar samples and their terrestrial equivalents are apparent at first glance even to the untrained eye. When a professional studies the materials, it gets even more obvious. Shall we discuss that now, or do you wish to concede so we can move on to your latest non-issue?




posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You know it doesnt take much for the average person to see through
the NASA scam. Take this video for example:


Whenever I show this video to people, red flags go up.
The first thing they notice is how the astronaut fumbles a film magazine into the camera.


Foos, thank you for this clip, I was in stitches. Where did you find this?

I love the part where the $38,000,000 rover takes a second or so to respond the command input.
"yep, that will keep our astro's safe on the moon???"

Do you know if the suits where pressurized in this clip as they allegedly were on the moon?
Their hands seem very nimble in some parts. I'ts going to take me a couple of days to go through this carefully.
Brilliant find.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Well then put your money where you mouth is and lets see a video of the astronauts getting off and on the LRV without help on the moon.


Since Ppk is determined to run with this ball:


Now can we return to the discussion at hand FoosM? Oh, and Ppk, I believe CHRLZ is still waiting for some answers.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
PPK seems to be having problems reading as usual (which probably explains why he doesn't actually know anything), so here's some help:

Dear PPK,

CHRLZ and rest of us would like the answers to his questions please. Your constant diversions seem to imply... well that maybe you don't have any answers? At least none that support your argument. Here is a helpful link to the questions for you PPK:

post by CHRLZ

Now answer the questions



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Would you elaborate, in your own words, exactly what points you are trying to make, by asking these questions? ( "allegedly"----oh, brother.... :shk: )


Do you know if the suits where pressurized in this clip as they allegedly were on the moon?
Their hands seem very nimble in some parts...


"Their hands seem very nimble" ? As opposed to....???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit...not to load ppk55 with too many tasks....feel free to address the various questions in order, and CHRLZ's came first. I can wait....

edit on 3 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Yes ppk55

Time to answer questions.




posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 



Well then put your money where you mouth is and lets see a video of the astronauts getting off and on the LRV without help on the moon.


Since Ppk is determined to run with this ball:


Now can we return to the discussion at hand FoosM? Oh, and Ppk, I believe CHRLZ is still waiting for some answers.


Sorry, not good enough.
You can barely see what is going on and more than half the subject is cut off and goes offscreen.
You might as well show me this and say that Spinner Cars really work.



This is why I say most of you guys are not critical thinkers when it comes to things
you wish are true. So that footage might convince you, but is BS to a skeptic.

One more thing... when the astronauts "sits" down, he barely changes height, if at all, as if he actually is standing on the LRV. And didnt those video cameras pan? Or not yet on this mission?
edit on 3-11-2010 by FoosM because: one more thing added...



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Time's ticking PPK. I'm off to work now, but when I return, if you haven't answered those questions, I will. In great detail.

Your choice of course. And feel free to introduce more topics and try to bury them, but I think the folks here are now wise to it.

It's time you are held to account.

(FoosM next.)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   




wanted to get a better video of the
LRV deployment.
I can now see at least that the astro "hops" into the LRV...
he hops in... holding on to what though?




I hope there is better videos out there as proof
that entering the LRV was no issue "on the moon"



Astronaut and Houston Jokingly Admit the Lunar Rover Was Fixed Overnight By Marshall Space Flight Center.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Although you have been caught lying before, thisis the most blatant example yet:


Sorry, not good enough.
You can barely see what is going on and more than half the subject is cut off and goes offscreen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit, because you posted, same time. Here is your new comment:


I can now see at least that the astro "hops" into the LRV...
he hops in... holding on to what though?


Good. You DID watch again. And, you can see it now.

But, why confused about the "hop"???

Try figuring out, for yourself, what the Astronaut, fully suited, would "weigh" on the Moon. Using Earth-normal pounds, for comparison. THEN, remember that the human in the suit still possesses Earth-normal human strength. Think about how that will affect the way he can move his mass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Each and every time you are shown something to burst your made-up "hoax" bubble, this is the sort of response, and you hope no one will notice.

So, you lied. You can admit that. It is there, for everyone who watches that same YouTube clip (only about a minute and a half, people WILL watch it).

OR.....other alternative, benefit of the doubt....you didn't lie (this time), but then you have to admit that you didn't watch the entire clip.

Which will it be???

The clip is sped-up, time lapse fashion, so as not to overly bore people. At the point on the timescale, bottom of the clip, conveniently provided by YouTube, you can plainly see at 1:18 the Astronaut GET INTO THE LEFT SEAT, and drive away.

He got INTO the seat, all by himself. NO one else was anywhere near him. It's at the far right side of the frame, but at least 98% of his body is in total view, as soon as he's seated...his body isn't out of frame until he DRIVES the LRV away, and out of frame. Heck, before he sits down, his ENTIRE torso is in view, above the LRV frame and various items in the foreground!!!

Again....watch again, and again and again. Until you get it.

edit on 3 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: Updated



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have watched several of jarrah whites videos, and he has debunked almost every flaw in the Apollo landings and more of nasa's lies. I agree that certain facts from the biographies of these astro-nots and the happenings in the documentation from nasa records contradict theirselves way too much. It seems to me that if you lie about something so major that you would have your stories straight. One of the greatest american hoax's of all time is being unraveled by a twenty year old, lol!


jra

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Firstly, in the interests of accuracy, I did not say, "they can send a full sized LM remotely to the Moon". I said a craft could be landed which looked like a LM, when looking from Earth through a telescope.


You're right, you didn't say a full sized LM. I just assumed it would be if one were trying to pass off a fake LM as the real thing. Otherwise the measurements wouldn't add up. But this is all irrelevant anyway, since you can't even see the leftover Apollo hardware with Earth based telescopes.


And now for the all-important context. I was replying to a poster who stated that the existance of reflectors and LMs on the Moon was proof of manned missions. Obviously they are not. I was not arguing about manned missions. I was arguing against an illogical concept of proof.


Well to be fair and accurate, WW didn't say reflectors were proof of manned missions. However, the reflectors, along with the samples brought back are some extremely good evidence that we've been to the Moon.

Just compare the amount of soil samples the USSR brought back (326g) with unmanned landers to the amount of rocks and core samples that the US brought back (382kg). For the US to have collected all these samples with unmanned probes, it would have required literally thousands of unmanned landers. That wouldn't have gone on unnoticed.


I'm not saying radiation would prevent Moon missions. But our increased understanding of the dangers must have some NASA folk waking in a cold sweat when they realise how nearly an Apollo mission could have been wiped out.


And they were aware of the dangers during that time, but they took steps to minimize the risks. Radiation in space can be deadly at times, but most HB's seem to think it's always dangerous which is very wrong.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by maxhile
 


Congratulations on introducing yourself as someone who either can't read, or worse still someone that can't be bothered to. Now go back and read the thread, make sure you rememember to apologise after for your ignorance.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I really shouldn't waste my time on your reply, but luckily for you i have a few minutes to kill. I have read this thread, a few times. I have even done my fair share of research of NASA's files and documentation. In every conspiracy you have optimists and pessimists (You make your side very clear), therefore creating a vast region of theoretical possibilities. All the "facts" and attempts of the members in ATS and elsewhere that have been made to disprove the people who have red flagged NASA's many flaws have not altered my judgment on the landing theories at all. In fact they have inspired me to further question their possibility to accept the errors that have been made in the governments allegations of accomplishments. I think you should take your own advice and not believe everything you read, this is the internet.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by maxhile
 



I have even done my fair share of research of NASA's files and documentation.


Excellent! You are heartily invited to share your research here, but please be prepared to present it in the form of evidence, not opinion. Welcome aboard!



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by maxhile
 



I think you should take your own advice and not believe everything you read, this is the internet.


Seems as if THAT is how you based your opinion on the so-called "hoax".

Did you ever, in your in-depth research, read any books as well Biographies, autobiographies, and other historical accounts?

Because, the ONLY people who, after absorbing even the barest tip of the iceberg, of the VAST mountain that is the evidence and corroboration and personal stories and recollections are the ones who believe in the "hoax".

The information presented by many in this thread to counter the (mostly) inane ramblings of others, who fail miserably each time to make a decent case for "hoax" must, by its very nature, reference the Internet. NO one here, in offering valid evidence, has any alternative, because we use the same medium for the message....only way to TEACH directly is either one-on-one, or perhaps by a correspondence course set-up of some sort.

Another thing that I expect is a problem, and that causes the "hoax" believer to keep their fingers stuck ignorantly in their ears, is a lack of any visits to a museum, of sufficient quality, to see the hardware and exhibits in person. Not all people have such access, sadly.

BTW, "Jarrah White's" nonsense has been adequately demolished at each and every turn. And, he has been exposed as a fabricator. By now, the only possible reason for his continuing this folly is, as has been suggested, a profit motive (via his YouTube channel)....or, less plausibly, a severe mental derangement of some sort.

Any number of other possibilities I haven't thought of as yet....of course, it could be as simple as a silly little boy who just craves attention........................kinda like this:







edit on 3 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Revenons a nos Moon Rocks. I am sure that you will agree that there is no substitute for personal experience; that the evidence of your own eyes cam readily be used to discredit false claims. Geology is the study of landscape forms, how they were created and what they are composed of. Anyone can make some personal observations of the Moon. I encourage you to go outside and take a look. Depending on the phase, the first (if full or gibbous) or second thing you will notice is that it is not of uniform appearance. Much of the surface is very bright, although there are also extensive darker areas. In fact, it looks something like this:


(National Geographic Stock Photo)

In ancient times, it was believed that these darker areas, which tend to look blue, were in fact lunar seas, or maria, hence "Sea of Tranquility," and so forth. First indisputable observation: even with the naked eye, it is obvious that the lunar surface is not uniform, and that it must be composed of different materials in different places.

Another observation you can make on your own: the Moon seems very bright. You can read a book by the light of the full moon. I've never had any qualms about driving or negotiating a mountain trail by its light. It is also not nearly as bright as the Sun. Looking directly at the sun can blind you, which is not the case with the Moon. Ancient astronomers were able to deduce that the Moon's phases are due to the fact that the Moon reflects the Sun's light. This has been fully understood for 4,000 years, but you can work it out for yourself with a little patience. The fact that the Moon is very bright in the sky, yet not blinding, means that the Moon is not very reflective. It is not a perfect mirror. It has what is called a low "albedo." Albedo is a measure of reflectiveness. If you are determined, you can work out the albedo of all of the planets all on your own. Two hundred years of gifted amateur astronomers (and Astronomers Royal, which until only very recently has amounted to the same thing) have worked out the albedos of various members of the solar system. On a scale where 1=100% reflectivity, Venus' fluffy, if poisonus clouds give it an albedo of 0.9. Ruddy Mars has an albedo of 0.25. The Moon has an albedo of 0.136. In other words, it is not a very good reflector. (Note: I am using traditional figures for the albedos, visible light, etc. Bond, George Phillip Bond....) Again, with patience (and a calculator) you can work all this out for yourself. Second indisputable observation: the Moon must be composed of very dark, non-reflective materials.

Now let's get out our binoculars. Take a look at the Moon and let's see what it looks like:


Pimlico. You want their binoculars.

Wow. Now there's a whole new range of terrain to explore. The most obvious of these are all those circular features we shall call "craters," after a Greek word meaning "shallow bowl." The second most obvious feature are arcs of lighter colored terrain radiating out from certain craters, covering vast distances. Let us call these "rays," because they radiate. Oh, and it is also obvious that there are great tangled chains of mountains. The view through a really fine pair of binoculars, say, those manufactured by Pimlico, (Note to Mods: I am so keeping to copyright standards here) approximates the view through telescopes four centuries ago (although Pimlico's optics are clearly far superior):



Third indisputable observation: there are several different types of terrain that seem to have different origins, some of which are capable of "writing over" others. In other words, the rays "cover" parts of the maria and therefore must be of later origin. Are you with me FoosM? Do you have any problem with the geological facts so far? Especially given that you can confirm them all with your own eyes (and a pair of Pimlico binoculars)?

At this point, it doesn't matter whether you concede defeat or not... I just feel like expounding on selenology for the sheer pleasure of it.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
PPK55... Still no answers? I'm a patient sorta guy, so I'll wait a bit longer...

I mean, it WAS you that posted that thing about emailing Richard West, so why have you gone all shy about it now? DID you get a reply, or not? If you did, POST THE REPLY. If not, WHO did you send it to? These are VERY simple questions.

And it WAS you who wanted to debate the Eleanor Blakely stuff, so SURELY you must have an opinion on it? Or is anything JW says good enough for you? Have you considered all the 'facts' on that transcript, in proper context? I see you haven't even had the cohones to verify that it is correct... That's VERY lazy, seeing I went to the trouble of transcribing it, and YOU were the one who wanted it discussed...

All you did was post a link to the video (in contravention of ATS rules, but who's moderating...)



Anyway, I'm happy to draw this out a bit longer. It'll be all the more enlightening...

tick tock .. tick tock



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
HMMMM, So this is still going on? What makes me wonder is what do you need to believe they were on the moon? Just to make it a bit clearer

Pro Arguments:

We have Astronauts that say they were on the moon
We have Rockets that can fly to the moon
We have Satellites and probes on the moon
We have 100000 People involved in The Apollo Job
We have Moon Data
We have Map of Far Side
We have NASA Pictures
We have ESA Pictures
We have Chandrayaan-1
We have Jaxa/Selene Pictures
We have Jaxa/Selene Elevation Data
We have LRO 3D Picutres
We have Radiation Data
We have Videos
We have 10000 Pictures
We have Moon Rocks
We have the Knowlege
We have the Power
We have the Moon

Con:
- Wind on Moon (false)
- Radiation on Moon (false)
- We have no Rocket that can go to the moon (false)
- NASA Fakes everything (false)
- Aliens on the Moon Far Side (false)
- Gravitation / Fast Footage Issue (false)
- The Eagle is made of Paper (false)
- The Russians did know it's impossible to reach the moon (false)
- All Astronauts are lying (false)
- No Stars visible (false)
- The NASA, Japan, and Europe have the same Fake Data and use it to hose the World. (false)
- The Earth is Hollow and we are on the inner side, so we can't reach the moon (false)
- The Moon is a Starship made my aliens (false)

Did I forgot something ?

edit on 4-11-2010 by cushycrux because: Corrections

edit on 4-11-2010 by cushycrux because: Added Moon Rocks


edit on 4-11-2010 by cushycrux because: Added Chandrayaan-1

edit on 4-11-2010 by cushycrux because: Corrections



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 



Did I forgot something ?


On the "pro" side, only forgot the Indian spacecraft Lunar mission. Did some science, took pictures. Camera resolution not as good as the LRO, however. Chandrayaan-1.

en.wikipedia.org...

Chandrayaan-2 will launch in 2013. spaceflightnow.com...

The Apollo "hoax" believers will soon be just a fading memory.......






edit on 4 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: Too many links




top topics



 
377
<< 235  236  237    239  240  241 >>

log in

join