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: 32
377
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
good,good.they need to know people see what's going on.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand


12 men allegedly walked on the moon. Is it easier to get 12 men to lie or 3 Billion to believe having only one source to reference (which just happens to be their own).



Not 12 men to lie, more like a couple hundred thousand. Anybody working on the LM, say, would know if what they were making was really intended to go into space or if it was just an elaborate ruse.

My father knows a member of a group of ham radio operators who tracked the Apollo missions and received much of their transmissions in the clear. No filtering from the Networks. No subterfuge from NASA.

If a bunch of hams can do it in their backyard, most countries did the same. And there were enough that would have liked to have spilled the beans to make keeping a secrect impossible, including the USSR, your fanciful denial notwithstanding.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Now FoosM, clearly you either:

- DIDN'T know, which tells us that you are not willing (or able?) to research even the most basic stuff.

- DID know... and I'll just let the reader draw the obvious conclusion.

Either way, it's not looking good...


No, the information wasn't all wrapped up in a bow and presented as an easily-digestible nugget by Jarrah White or Bart Sibrel. That information had to be researched and actually READ.

Seriously, look at most of the hoax believers around here and all of their information comes from these kind of videos. They are utterly incapable of researching a topic for themselves.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This maybe a stupid question, but is it possible that Neil and the rest actually went to the moon, but because conditions were so bad, that they actually set up a staged landing for photo purposes...?

Jarrah makes some very good points. Is it possible that NASA knew beforehand that the landing would not be "TV friendly"? Maybe they set up a stage for simultanious broadcast. I mean, we can't see the astronauts faces when they are being photographed. Is it possible that when the astronauts are actually on the moon sending back their audio, that NASA didn't just sync up their audio with what was being shot on a sound stage? They did know what the surface looked like from previous unmanned missions. Iight explain why the photos and vidio do not disply stars in the background... Not enough time to add them.

I'm just throwing that out there. I have no proof or even any sembelance of proof that it happened that way... Is it possible??



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Another point, by them actually going to the moon and landing, almost everybody working there would believe that what they are seeing on video is real. Only a small number would know the truth. It would make it easier to conceal the truth. So in essance, they actually went to the moon but what they show us is a lie.

Now, I don't know if this was ever brought up. I have been unable to find it anywhere. But I'm also willing to believe that I'm not the only one to think this way...

Let me know... But be gentle, I am new at this.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 001ggg100
 


The Apollo craft were tracked to the Moon by optical and radio telescopes read notes at the bottom of this link re the trace it shows

Radio

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Optical

www.astr.ua.edu...

No doubt on the net if you search you will find others.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
...
Jarrah makes some very good points.
...
I'm just throwing that out there. I have no proof or even any sembelance of proof that it happened that way... Is it possible??


I'll try to be 'gentle' but you make it difficult..


Firstly, *read* the thread. No, Jarrah DOESN'T make good points. If you believe he made a good point, tell us PRECISELY what point that was, and why you think it is 'convincing'.

But please do so only AFTER you've checked back over the thread. I strongly suggest you have the requisite knowledge to understand the issue you are promoting - if you don't, I would suggest a lengthy visit to clavius.org ...


Do you think all that is an unreasonable request?

PS (Added)
And I'm sorry, but your flippant comment about the 'missing stars' indicates you have simply walked into this thread without the faintest clue.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Hey Fellas,

According to the Internet Occam's Razor the moonwalks were faked.

What is easier, doing a lunar EVA or faking one? Exactly.... Internet Occam's Razor says as it is easier to fake [at least] the moonwalk portion of the missions and simpler; therefore the moonwalks we saw were faked.





[edit on 7-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Now FoosM, clearly you either:

- DIDN'T know, which tells us that you are not willing (or able?) to research even the most basic stuff.

- DID know... and I'll just let the reader draw the obvious conclusion.

Either way, it's not looking good...


No, the information wasn't all wrapped up in a bow and presented as an easily-digestible nugget by Jarrah White or Bart Sibrel. That information had to be researched and actually READ.

Seriously, look at most of the hoax believers around here and all of their information comes from these kind of videos. They are utterly incapable of researching a topic for themselves.


LOL people like you are such a clown.

But i bet you believe everything NASA tells you as fact, but hey NASA believes global warming is real. But hey wasn't it just found out that it was a hoax?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
Another point, by them actually going to the moon and landing, almost everybody working there would believe that what they are seeing on video is real. Only a small number would know the truth. It would make it easier to conceal the truth. So in essance, they actually went to the moon but what they show us is a lie.

Now, I don't know if this was ever brought up. I have been unable to find it anywhere. But I'm also willing to believe that I'm not the only one to think this way...

Let me know... But be gentle, I am new at this.


Yeah, I noticed that some of the time of the audio from the moon to earth was quite fast and very little delay.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Less than 3 seconds in fact.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Fellas,

According to the Internet Occam's Razor the moonwalks were faked.

What is easier, doing a lunar EVA or faking one? Exactly.... Internet Occam's Razor says as it is easier to fake [at least] the moonwalk portion of the missions and simpler; therefore the moonwalks we saw were faked.





[edit on 7-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


Erm... Occams razor states that if 2 theories exist to explain a phenonemon, the one that introduces the least external variables is to be preferred... says nothing about easier or harder.

Anyway: you got a current computer, don't you? And in 1969 CGI didn't exist yet, so this should be a piece of cake in 2010, right?

Please: make me a fake video with a bag flying like the one from apollo 16? Or if thats to hard kicking dust and have it fly in a perfect parabolic arc? If those things were easy to fake in the 60ies and 70ies, i am sure a proponent of your side of the debate has recreated such movies? Can you point me in the right direction? (and don't give me the hammer & feather thing, cause, as you know holding the feather horizontally does make a slight difference in an atmosphere.)



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
Maybe they set up a stage for simultanious broadcast. I mean, we can't see the astronauts faces when they are being photographed. Is it possible that when the astronauts are actually on the moon sending back their audio, that NASA didn't just sync up their audio with what was being shot on a sound stage?


No!!

Both audio and video were being received from the moon!!!!!
In Australia, Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station monitored the transmissions from Apollo missions, from:
* Tidbinbilla radio telescope made observations.
* Carnarvon received radio transmissions
* Deaking Switching Station was the switching station for the Apollo television broadcasts.


the antennas were pointed at the moon, this was not NASA. this is 3rd party



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


Are you saying you believe it is easier to travel to the moon and film a lunar EVA than it is to film the 'lunar' EVA here on Earth?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   


But i bet you believe everything NASA tells you as fact, but hey NASA believes global warming is real. But hey wasn't it just found out that it was a hoax?


May I mention this to you, ONCE AGAIN:
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence or analysis of evidence about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA, the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon Landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the moon landings.

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place. On later missions NASA released information to the public explaining where third party observers could expect to see the various craft at specific times according to scheduled launch times and planned trajectories.

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[21] Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991): 2-3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after Apollo.

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by debunky
 


Are you saying you believe it is easier to travel to the moon and film a lunar EVA than it is to film the 'lunar' EVA here on Earth?


With or without parabolic dust?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Are you saying you believe it is easier to travel to the moon and film a lunar EVA than it is to film the 'lunar' EVA here on Earth?


No. Is English not your first language? Do you not understand the concept of Occam's razor? Read about it in your native language to understand why your statement is way off the mark.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL people like you are such a clown.

A Master of Ad Hominem! Your continuing stream of content free posts and avoidance of facts are duly noted. When you want to actually debate, let me know.

In the meantime, not that I would want to embarrass you, dragnet (oh no, not me) but thus far on this thread alone you have emitted these gems, proving beyond a doubt just how "informed" you are on this topic:

"When did JAXA say we went to the moon?"
Here, where they perfectly verified the lunar terrain at the Apollo 15 site.

"how is it that they were able to find the 'gaping hole' to pierce through the Van Allen radiation belt?"
Mapping of the Van Allen belt's thickness had been quite accurately done by the early 60's.

"if you are that far away from the earth and you are on the moon chances are you will freak out just a little"
Er, they were highly trained test pilots. Perhaps they were a little braver than dragnet..?

"So if they found the site where is the equipment"
dragnet can't understand the concept of "resolution". The resolution of all the imaging equipment being mentioned here is easy to look up.. but too hard for Dragnet.

"Josephus might be right with the radiation... There was not enough lead.."
Lead is close to the WORST possible 'shield' for the type of radiation in question! dragnet just can't be bothered to research anything.

"I actually talked to a Russian friend of mine..an Astrophysicist"
That one was HILARIOUS, but I don't think dragnet wants to talk about her anymore - maybe the black helicopters got to her..

"what prevents us from going to a nuclear blast site.. we don't have the technology to go through the heavy radiation of space"
To dragnet, the universe is simple. Radiation is all the same - a-bomb, IR, UV, gamma, HEP, Neutron, er.. kryptonite...? Yup, all the same and all you need is ...ummm... lead, of course. Josephus must have said so...

"I have high IQ and high common sense and when both are going huh?!"
Gotta love folks who pull the old "I'm in Mensa" card.. Yes, I'm sure dragnet did some IQ tests online. Guess they didn't ask any astronomy or science questions...



Fine, fine effort dragnet. This forum is a richer place for those gems of wisdom.

And your research skills? - STUNNING!


jra

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 001ggg100
Iight explain why the photos and vidio do not disply stars in the background... Not enough time to add them.


The lack of stars has to do with the camera exposure settings. Starlight is extremely faint. You need an exposure setting that would last 30 seconds or more. The typical exposure setting for the Apollo surface photography was about 1/125 of a second. That's not nearly enough to get stars to expose.


Originally posted by Exuberant1
According to the Internet Occam's Razor the moonwalks were faked.

What is easier, doing a lunar EVA or faking one? Exactly....


I think doing a Lunar EVA for real is much easier than trying to fake it. For the simple fact that it's impossible to fake 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of space on Earth. Not even Stanley Kubrick himself could over come these issues with the best special effects of that time with the Movie "2001". I don't think one could make a truely convincing fake even with todays special effects either.

And as mentioned by debunky. You seem to misunderstand what "Occam's Razor" is exactly.

How exactly is creating some elaborate hoax that not only fools people and scientific professionals all over the whole world for decades, but the hundreds of thousands of people from the many contracted companies who worked on the program itself. Yet some how doesn't fool a small group of people who seem to lack an understanding of the scientific and engineering principals behind the missions. How is that the simpler solution than actually going and doing it for real?!





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join