It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...the other one that stands out to me is the early release of the mission to an Australian news Paper
You Said (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?)
I told you it was Eric Jones you said Yes, I know that was pointed out in the video
well you were on a defensive straight away JM was trying to debunk Erics Suggestions for the Flag movement.
Eric was not another proposer as you put Him
I don't really know what the big deal is to you anyways .
I have thought some of his theory's were interesting he had a good case with his presentations ,Nothing wrong with that is there,I said NASA went to the Moon .
I just have noticed a problem with some of the images
and are not getting into a debate with you about them as they have been battered to deaf in other threads.
I had come to the same conclusion on my own without the assistance of you..And why would you find that strange?
And why have you linked me with Exuberant twice with your posts
Have I ever debated over topics with you before which included Exuberant1
Answer NO So who ever is sending you U2Us linking me to Exuberant is a trouble maker and is how trolls get their name.
I have commented on what I feel I need to, you have asked for the smoking guns as I see I have presented to you the ones I find of interest..
You seem to be pushing for trouble with your attacks which I will not be getting into and derailing this thread .
Originally posted by ocker
reply to post by CHRLZ
Here is the image getting analyzed again her name is in the video .
Originally posted by RWM88
Laser reflector anyone?
Notice the flag only moves when someones by it and has recently just touched it?
Notice you'd have to stay in the Van Allen radiation belt for quite some time to be killed?
Notice the Soviet Union didn't blow the whistle on the hoax?
Notice different angles of shadows can be cast in different directions from one light source?
Notice the lack of stars in the background because a camera can only focus on close or far objects. Like Hubble has to wait and sit there for days staring in to space to get a picture of the heavens?
Notice the rocks brought back from the moon are still being used today to try and work out how the moon was formed?
Notice the Apollo UFO incidents?
Notice radio telescopes from around the world from different nations monitoring the Apollo missions and calculating the astronauts positions by time delay calculations through radio waves, or was Sir Patrick Moore and other great minds simply monitoring something else or perhaps they were in on it as well?
I choose to believe man went to the moon because the whole program was watched by millions and monitored officially and unoffically by enthusiasts, professionals and amateurs excited by the fact that man is going to the moon.
The US government had a hard enough time making a show with 9/11, how the hell could they make a show of the Moon whilst being watched by the whole world 50 years ago during a cold war?
Well stop pointing at the "coulds", "woulds" and "shoulds" and show what IS. You have been schooled all over this thread and the only circle I see anyone traveling in is YOU.
Originally posted by Josephus23
I am pointing to what could be huge flaw in the "official storyline", and you are trying to use the same argument that I have presented to disqualify my points.
YOU have invented the "deadly radiation theory" and then inserted a FALSE dichotomy of possible explanations. One of these explanations is a belief you have, that the landing is Faked.
First, the ONLY radiation was in the Van Allen Belts. Now I have shown that to be invalid and another answer is quickly made up to try and sell the official storyline.
So show us the truth, and not what you hope the truth is. You admit we don't know if what you claim actually exists. Yet you want people to entertain it as an explanation and a proof. That is bad form.
Good form if you are on a debate team, but bad form for all those looking for the truth.
So your theory that there are deadly pockets of radiation on the moon that show that the landing is a hoax is based on what?
I genuinely hope that anyone who can think critically can see through this baseless answer given by Phage.
Which makes it absolutely useless. And it has been useless for about 10 pages now.
It is nothing but a last resort answer to the fact that my point can not be proven wrong or right.
What anomaly are you talking about? The one that you state can neither be confirmed or denied, that we don't know about, the one you have accepted from a video and injected, and offered as an argument to debate a specific claim relating to the moon landing?
And that is too big of an anomaly for me to accept.
Yes, but lets define what is actually is persisting in motion. Ignorance.
See persistence of motion.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not getting it yet?
Originally posted by fockewulf190
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by fockewulf190
You cannot see the Apollo landers in any of that probe's images.
Deal with it.
*Jarrah White also addresses the Chandrayaan issues in his video series.
I'm sure a smart fella like you can find the right videos. Watch them or don't.
So you believe the Indians are in the tank also, giving NASA some extra cover up for the grand cover up in exchange for some scientific scooby snacks or whatever.
Tom Hanks starred in the Illuminati. Maybe he´ll do "Moonfaker" for his next flick. Gotta be a comedy though, but he´s done some of that.
[edit on 2-5-2010 by fockewulf190]
This guy went out and interviewed a professional.
Who's at least a little bit credible here ?