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: 241
377
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
You five or six guys are real TROLLS, just to say it. Bashing, flocking together, hate. This thread is a shame! Some of you started with good facts, but this last few pages had a really bad taste, I am done here.


Maybe they are bots?


Programmed to automatically respond in any selected Apollo thread using via proxies to hide their true source....

Or that was the bots theory about Foos anyways.




posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Well its confirmed,
the Apollo moonlandings are based on a... book!?

Excellent point.

By the same logic we can prove the sinking of the Titanic never happened.
Obviously it was a hoax based on a book written previously,
Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
It obviously means very little taken alone. However, the ISRO has stated they have found evidence of disturbed soil in the same areas as the Apollo missions. Since we are told this is a conspiracy by NASA, why would the Indians lie?

Looking at the disturbed soil pics, it's a bit hard to see anything which clearly shows a moon lander or rover was there. And theres no indication from these pictures than humans were there.


The same goes with the Japanese. Their SELENE probe was able to furnish beautiful digital recreations of panoramas of some of the Apollo sites that match the pictures perfectly. There is absolutely no way that could be faked unless the Japanese are ALSO in on the conspiracy.

The digital recreation of an Apollo site is more convincing.
But surely there are pictures of astronauts in that area that could have been used as a comparison?
It would do much more to convince real disbelievers if a shot showing astronauts in the same area was included.

edit on 6/11/10 by Kailassa because: formatting



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

The digital recreation of an Apollo site is more convincing.
But surely there are pictures of astronauts in that area that could have been used as a comparison?
It would do much more to convince real disbelievers if a shot showing astronauts in the same area was included.


Why?

It's undoubtedly a picture from the Apollo archives. What good would an astronaut do?

If the HBs aren't going to believe, they aren't going to believe.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Kailassa

The digital recreation of an Apollo site is more convincing.
But surely there are pictures of astronauts in that area that could have been used as a comparison?
It would do much more to convince real disbelievers if a shot showing astronauts in the same area was included.


Why?

It's undoubtedly a picture from the Apollo archives. What good would an astronaut do?

If the HBs aren't going to believe, they aren't going to believe.

Well, the point of the exercise is not to prove spacecraft went to the moon. There aren't many sceptics who will deny that moon landings have been made.
The point is to prove some of those spacecraft were manned.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Kailassa

The digital recreation of an Apollo site is more convincing.
But surely there are pictures of astronauts in that area that could have been used as a comparison?
It would do much more to convince real disbelievers if a shot showing astronauts in the same area was included.


Why?

It's undoubtedly a picture from the Apollo archives. What good would an astronaut do?

If the HBs aren't going to believe, they aren't going to believe.

Well, the point of the exercise is not to prove spacecraft went to the moon. There aren't many sceptics who will deny that moon landings have been made.
The point is to prove some of those spacecraft were manned.


Do you really think a picture of a spacesuit is going to placate this bunch?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh Tom, lying smacks of desperation.
And you have been lying for quite some time now.

I said "maybe" ISRO doesn't trust NASA.



Still waiting for proof of my serial lying or a retraction.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by FoosM
Well its confirmed,
the Apollo moonlandings are based on a... book!?

Excellent point.

By the same logic we can prove the sinking of the Titanic never happened.
Obviously it was a hoax based on a book written previously,
Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan






You may be on to something...

though the difference is the book was admittedly used to convince Kennedy to fund Apollo
and von Braun is known to successfully pitch shady, expensive super projects to charismatic leaders.

And no, by itself the book doesn't prove hoax,
but its one clue in a very long string of clues that helps paint a picture of a
professional con job. Context, connections, and those devilish details will win the day.

For example, Clark's book used to pitch Apollo,
Clark connected to a project (2001) that involved many NASA personnel and a
director who many believe was somehow involved in the scam. Something there?
Who knows.

Truthfully, Im not all that convinced that Kubrick had direct involvement in
the actual filming or photography of Apollo. I think by making 2001, he allowed
NASA technicians, possibly with Disney, to get hands on training on how it could be done.
I see 2001 as a dual use project.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hold the phone... did Beck just state he doesn't anymore believe in
the moon landings





are we being prepared for... *gasp* full Disclosure?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

are we being prepared for... *gasp* full Disclosure?



While you're on the subject of "full disclosure", how about some proof or retraction?



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Hold the phone... did Beck just state he doesn't anymore believe in
the moon landings





are we being prepared for... *gasp* full Disclosure?



If you think he just stated he doesn't think we landed on the moon, then he also just stated that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans.

The fact that he was actually saying that no, Bush didn't blow up the levies and that yes, we did land on the moon and you think he's saying the exact opposite speaks volumes about your ability to interpret facts.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
. . .
though the difference is the book was admittedly used to convince Kennedy to fund Apollo . . .

Kennedy did not take much convincing. Are you aware just how important beating Russia in the space race was considered to be?

America was lagging behind Russia badly in obvious achievements, and the leaders of the time felt that loss of face deeply. The cold war, despite Krushchev's plea for unilateral disarmament in his 1959 address to the U.N., was a time of fear for both sides. School-kids across both nations were continually rehearsed in "duck and cover", and drilled in reaching the closest underground bunker as fast as possible. We were taught (brainwashed?) to fear, distrust and hate "the Red Menace", and they were taught to reciprocate.

It was believed control of space was essential to keep the country safe, and both sides were determined to gain that control. Gary Power's spy plane, supposedly doing weather reconnaissance, was somehow downed over Russia, and now the US administration wanted "weather satellites" instead.

John F. Kennedy, 1960:

"We are in a strategic space race with the Russians, and we have been losing. The first man-made satellite to orbit the earth was named Sputnik. The first living creature in space was Laika. The first rocket to the moon carried a Red flag. The first photograph of the far side of the moon was made with a Soviet camera. If a man orbits earth this year his name will be Ivan. These are unpleasant facts that the Republican candidate would prefer us to forget. Control of space will be divided in the next decade. If the Soviets control space they can control earth, as in past centuries the nation that controlled the seas dominated the continents. This does not mean that the United States desires more rights in space than any other nation. But we cannot run second in this vital race. To insure peace and freedom, we must be first."
. . .
The successful one-orbit flight of Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin on 12 April 1961 was a significant element in the subsequent American deliberations. While this event was anticipated by the Kennedy administration, the Soviet feat was still another blow to the American image at home and abroad.
. . .
John Logsdon concludes in his study of the events:
"The fiasco of the Bay of Pigs reinforced Kennedy's determination, already strong, to approve a program aimed at placing the United States ahead of the Soviet Union in the competition for firsts in space. It was one of the many pressures that converged on the president at the time, and thus its exact influence cannot be isolated. As president, Kennedy could treat few issues in isolation anyway, and there seems to be little doubt that the Bay of Pigs was in the front of his mind as he called Lyndon Johnson to his office on April 19 and asked him to find a 'space program which promises dramatic results in which we could win.'"

By the end of April 1961, Kennedy had decided that the dramatic program would be a manned lunar landing.
. . .
On 25 May in a speech on "Urgent National Needs," the President reminded the Congress that "these are extraordinary times. We face an extraordinary challenge." After addressing himself to a number of other important issues, Kennedy turned to the subject of space. This new frontier was just another aspect of the "battle that is going on around the world between freedom and tyranny...." Therefore, "Now it is time to take longer strides-time for a great new American enterprise-time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth." One of those "longer strides" Kennedy proposed was the landing of an American on the moon. The President believed "that the Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth." This goal was that bold type of challenge that had peculiar appeal to the young President. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."


So, you see, nothing was going to stop Nasa demonstrating to the world that they could put astronauts on the moon.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
If you think he just stated he doesn't think we landed on the moon, then he also just stated that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans.

The fact that he was actually saying that no, Bush didn't blow up the levies and that yes, we did land on the moon and you think he's saying the exact opposite speaks volumes about your ability to interpret facts.


transcript of Glenn Becks speaking:
"But two years ago, I didn't believe the same kind of things I believe today.
There are things that, you do your homework, and if you're a reasonable person, and you do your homework, there are things that you'll reject, for instance, Bush didn't blow up the levees, and we did land on the Moon."

Grammatically, the meaning of his words is that, "Bush didn't blow up the levees, and we did land on the Moon", are two things a reasonable person will reject.

I don't know the man, perhaps he did not mean what he said. Perhaps he really meant he believed two years ago that Bush blew up the levees, and we didn't land on the Moon, and had now changed his mind. Did he believe those things two years ago?

It seems a bit silly to knock someone for believing a media personality means what he has said.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by nataylor
If you think he just stated he doesn't think we landed on the moon, then he also just stated that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans.

The fact that he was actually saying that no, Bush didn't blow up the levies and that yes, we did land on the moon and you think he's saying the exact opposite speaks volumes about your ability to interpret facts.


transcript of Glenn Becks speaking:
"But two years ago, I didn't believe the same kind of things I believe today.
There are things that, you do your homework, and if you're a reasonable person, and you do your homework, there are things that you'll reject, for instance, Bush didn't blow up the levees, and we did land on the Moon."

Grammatically, the meaning of his words is that, "Bush didn't blow up the levees, and we did land on the Moon", are two things a reasonable person will reject.

I don't know the man, perhaps he did not mean what he said. Perhaps he really meant he believed two years ago that Bush blew up the levees, and we didn't land on the Moon, and had now changed his mind. Did he believe those things two years ago?

It seems a bit silly to knock someone for believing a media personality means what he has said.

Well then the bigger story here is that Glen Beck thinks George Bush blew up the levies.

Seems clear to me he was giving examples of conclusions one would come to after rejecting unreasonable things, not a list of unreasonable things. Did he use the best wording? No. Was his meaning clear? Yes.



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Do you have any proof that Glenn Beck didn't mean what he said?

Why didn't you post this proof? Is it because you are not being honest when you say you have such proof?







posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Interesting. So the LEM's engine caused not the slightest disturbance of dust on the surface, in ANY of the photos for any of the landings photographed. That's amazing.

If there is any evidence that the soil or dust around the landing site was LOOSE, and easily disbursed or disturbed, then that does it, right there.
edit on 6-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Interesting. So the LEM's engine caused not the slightest disturbance of dust on the surface, in ANY of the photos for any of the landings photographed. That's amazing.

If there is any evidence that the soil or dust around the landing site was LOOSE, and easily disbursed or disturbed, then that does it, right there.
edit on 6-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)
The descent engine did disturb the dust. In Apollo 15, there was enough the pilot made the landing based just on instruments, not by looking out the window.


Scott: I could see dust - just a slight bit of dust. At about 50 to 60 feet, the total view outside was obscured by dust. It was completely IFR (Instrument Flight Rules). I came into the cockpit (that is, switched his attention from the view out the window to the instrument readings that Jim was giving him) and flew with the instruments from there on down.


You can see it for yourself here:



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I fear you have drifted a long way from the topic. I can produce a counter personality to every one of yours that holds a diametrically opposed view. What is your point? Why should we care what Glenn Blech says?

I really wonder if your hero could stand toe to toe with scientists and engineers, who spent their careers at NASA, and dedicated themselves to the Apollo missions, and call them liars to their face.

The truly sorry part of this whole thread, is that most Apollo deniers have the wits of moldy tapioca.
There is very little original thought, and a lot of regurgitated material from decades ago, now long since debunked, or a rash of videos, sans a methodical, logical, HONEST approach to resolve the issues.

No, I'm afraid this isn't an attempt to find truth. Here we find no atmosphere of dialectic or debate - no, nothing here but insult and mockery.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I would be very interested in the earth shots taken from the moon. Do they show signs of anomaly?



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
That only applies to theories. The Apollo missions are part of history, and were repeated successfully, I'd like to ad. So your point doesn't apply. There are many historic occasions that have not been repeated, that are taken as fact.


But the repetition of the event was not carried out by an independent agency. And usually one off historic events are witnessed by many people from different countries or organisations who are independent of each other.


Every country that has sent a probe to the moon; Russia, Japan, India, ESA; have had to penetrate the VABs. Therefore the numbers are well known.

In addition, every satellite in geosynchronous or geostationary orbit spends its entire functional lifetime in the VABs. The engineers who design these have to know the amount and type of radiation in the belts to a very accurate degree in order to properly shield their sensitive electronics. Since many countries have satellites up, every one of them knows the amount of radiation in the belts.

Furthermore, the trajectory of the Apollo mission were designed to miss the heaviest portions of the belts. Here is a website that shows, both graphically and mathematically, those trajectories


I've no doubt that unmanned vehicles traverse the VAB without a problem, but the point I was questioning was that only NASA has sent humans through the belt. No other independent agency has verified that humans can penetrate it without harm.


It has to do with photon count. When I bounce a laser at a wall, I can record a few scattered photons coming back to my detector. However, if I put a mirror on the wall and aim the laser at it, I will see a very large spike in the number of photons coming back. That is what every person who has tried to hit the reflectors have found. When they aim a laser at the moon, they get a small background scatter until they find one of the reflectors, at which time they get a great increase of the number of photons returned.


OK cool thanks, but the issue still remains that the reflector could have been placed there remotely, just as the Russians landed a probe before the Apollo landings.



That is completely and totally incorrect.

meteorites.wustl.edu...


Yes I thought that this was a bold claim for Jarrah W. to make that would be much easier to refute.

I just want to close all the doors of reasonable doubt that's all.




top topics



 
377
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join