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: 325
377
<< 322  323  324    326  327  328 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.


Wait a minute.
Dont go anywhere.
2015?
I havent looked into the Russian space program, but you are claiming the Russians
Are far enough to land (or just send) men on the moon in 4 years?

Which program is this and when did it start?


google can be your friend...www.thespacebuff.com...


Wow, went to the link you posted, way to jump to conclusions.
I didnt see anything acknowledging an attempt to landing men on the moon in 4 years.

Is that why you used the Chinese data as a cover?
You really believe the Chinese and their claims of space travel prowess?
I trust them less than the Americans. LOL.




edit on 24-1-2011 by FoosM because: added video




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Reaper2137
well this is going to be the longest B.S thread in ATS history come 2015-2020 when Russia becomes the 2nd country to go to the moon. When they go and do it in the next few years and find that wow their is a-lot of space junk left from Apollo and the American's and they do it live.


Wait a minute.
Dont go anywhere.
2015?
I havent looked into the Russian space program, but you are claiming the Russians
Are far enough to land (or just send) men on the moon in 4 years?

Which program is this and when did it start?


google can be your friend...www.thespacebuff.com...


Wow, went to the link you posted, way to jump to conclusions.
I didnt see anything acknowledging an attempt to landing men on the moon in 4 years.

Is that why you used the Chinese data as a cover?
You really believe the Chinese and their claims of space travel prowess?
I trust them less than the Americans. LOL.




here I will point out in the site I post were it says it

Until now, there was a lot of secrecy about the new space craft. It is going to be tested unmanned in 2015, using a new rocket. First manned flights are scheduled for 2018. Anatoli Perminow, head of the Russian space agency Roskosmos confirmed the general plan last Saturday, but didn’t reveal any details. “Energija’s” chief engineer Anatoli Lopota pointed out that the new craft hast to be “competitive” at an international market, which is why details have to be kept secret.

Reason why I posted that link is because I knew you would never go here to confirm it.. since it was in english yeah way to jump to conclusions why don't you go back and read the entire thing lol..

here is the site confirming it for you.. like I said 2015-2020 www.gerhardkowalski.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Reason why I posted that link is because I knew you would never go here to confirm it.. since it was in english yeah way to jump to conclusions why don't you go back and read the entire thing lol..

here is the site confirming it for you.. like I said 2015-2020 www.gerhardkowalski.com...


Oh no? I made a post about planned missions to the moon way back.
And what you posted as evidence was nothing substantial.
Its all talk.
Why waste people's time in that way?



It is going to be tested unmanned in 2015, using a new rocket. First manned flights are scheduled for 2018.


Does that say anything about landing men on the moon by 2020?
Not to me.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



When I use the word "gimped" I am saying "crippled" or "disabled".

What I am saying is that the Hasselblads had the ability to take timed or long exposures.
This was taken out, or disabled, during the modification process.
So that the Hasselblads were unable to take any decent photo of the cosmos even if the Astronauts would want to.


This is getting tedious. I'll just let you argue with yourself for a while:


You made a lot of claims,
but where are your sources?




I posted sources earlier.
If you have any info contradicting that Hasselblads can do timed exposures then let us know.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



BTW - I have little challenge for you, FoosM. A minute ago you rolled out the 'everyone', suggesting you might be talking to a group of knowledgeable astronomy folk. OK, then... Take this entire posting, and go to ANY astronomy club. Show it to the head honcho at that club, and get his/her comments on who is correct.


Sorry, but a normal person would just laugh and ask who is the rude %$#$ writing like that..
Your points, which maybe correct, lose meaning in your rude tone..

Please speak just for yourself, BiB. If YOU don't like it, feel free to say so, but don't presume to speak for others. And don't do a 'FoosM', and tell us that you asked a fantasy 'everyone' and of course they all agree with you...

It is VERY notable that you have not addressed one iota of the information, and instead just want to discuss my 'tone'...


Oh BTW, I think I read the astronauts screwed up and used the wrong film in the camera at one stage..
That mucked up the pics...

You think you read it...??? Gee, you have put a lot of work into your 'research'. Who wouldn't just take your word for it? And can you explain how a mistake made by an astronaut would be actually relevant to the discussion?


And if you post back to me with the same rude tone, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for a reply... Being civil is easy.

And making unsupported comments and avoiding the topic completely is.. even easier.

Anyway, for anyone other than BiB and FoosM, who is actually interested in the science... my comments about the losses due to the earth's atmosphere are easily verified by ANYONE. Indeed, for anyone who lives near a mountain, or has travelled in an airliner at night, you can easily see this effect for yourself. With a manual camera, you can verify it, by taking a star image at ground level and then at a level above much of the atmosphere - the difference in visibilty/f-stop/magnitude is visible, but quite small indeed. Compared to the magnitudes of difference between say 2" binoculars and a 24" scope.. there is simply no contest.

And there is an even simpler way to verify this... on a clear night with little haze, how much different is a star's brightness when near the horizon, versus directly above? When you look straight up, you look through MUCH less atmosphere...

This is all part of the science of stellar photometry, and it is discussed at a reasonably understandable level here:
Stellar Photometry
Scroll down to the bit titled "Looking through the atmosphere" for some clues. You will see from that diagram that the difference between atmosphere and vacuum is LESS than the difference between looking straight up, versus looking to the horizon.

So, in simpleton terms - a big scope at a high location on earth will give images that re FAR better than anything the Apollo missions could have taken up. And that's not even considering the fact that it was broad daylight.

Do you see many optical telescopes being used in daylight to do star imaging? (Yes, partly that is because of atmospheric scattering, but it is also about the difficulty of controlling stray light.)

I repeat, the only people who would make this silly claim are those ignorant of astronomy - and you have to ask, why would someone so ignorant of astronomy be here making these claims????

And if you think that's rude.... I'm ignorant on neurosurgery, on quantum physics, and a whole pile of other things. And I don't get upset by people telling me that.

The difference is - I don't make a complete twit of myself by posting on neurosurgery or QP forums...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



The difference is - I don't make a complete twit of myself by posting on neurosurgery or QP forums...


Well said, sir.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I posted sources earlier.
If you have any info contradicting that Hasselblads can do timed exposures then let us know.


What the Spock are you on about, FoosM? No-one here has ever said that the Hasselblads couldn't take long exposures, except possibly you. Your posts are so oblique at times that it's not clear what you're trying to say. When you challenged me to link to a source that proved that the human eye takes time to adjust to the dark, I obliged, even though it's a matter of common knowledge. You have just made the outrageous claim that NASA somehow sabotaged their own cameras, and yet you refuse to provide even the merest shred of evidence. The least you could do is cherry pick an article that says "the Hasselblads were modified...." and wave your hands a bit.

Hang on... did you mean "timed exposures" or "time exposures?" See what I mean?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

And what you posted as evidence was nothing substantial.
Its all talk.
Why waste people's time in that way?


I wish you took your own advice Foos, if so there wouldn't be a 325 page thread here


I cant believe this is still going, and that the suggestions posed by Foss et al have descended even further into lunacy.

During my break i had the good fortune of visiting Kennedy Space Center. I would suggest that Foos and the other hoax believers put this on their list of destinations to visit, it might give you guys a perspective on Apollo that appears to be sorely missing.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Please speak just for yourself, BiB. If YOU don't like it, feel free to say so, but don't presume to speak for others. And don't do a 'FoosM', and tell us that you asked a fantasy 'everyone' and of course they all agree with you...

It is VERY notable that you have not addressed one iota of the information, and instead just want to discuss my 'tone'...


Mate, your type of tone is why ATS is not like people tell me it use to be..
No one posts much good stuff here anymore and many good posters have left due to rude ignorant posters such as yourself..
If that's what you call debating then it's obvious you don't debate face to face..
Rude comments and you wouldn't last a minute...

T&C forbids me from adding anymore..

Ohh, but yes, the Apollo crew did screw up and use the wrong film..
Go search the thread, it's there.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Mate, your type of tone is why ATS is not like people tell me it use to be..
No one posts much good stuff here anymore and many good posters have left due to rude ignorant posters such as yourself.. If that's what you call debating then it's obvious you don't debate face to face..
Rude comments and you wouldn't last a minute...

T&C forbids me from adding anymore..

Ohh, but yes, the Apollo crew did screw up and use the wrong film..
Go search the thread, it's there.

Oh the irony!! - Don't let the T&C stop you - good to see you are taking the high road....


As for the old 'search for it yourself' routine - I've seen it before. And know what it means.

Given I posted a boatload of information above and you have not engaged yourself with ANY of it, nor noticed the bit where I SPECIFICALLY asked you how this 'wrong film' thing was relevant to the topic, it's pretty clear that you are not here for denying ignorance. Your comment about "if that's what you call debating" is particularly poignant, don't you think? Checked any reflective surfaces lately?

As for ATS not being what it used to, yes, it's fallen apart, and in my not very humble opinion it is because people like ppk and foosm are allowed to post (and RE-RE-RE-RE-post) any made up garbage they like, and not be pulled up for misleading the forum.

I get very sick of it, and that's why I haven't posted anything else here for some time - the only reason I'm here is that I have unfinished business, namely the Apollo Radiation webpage that is almost ready, so I keep a bit of an eye on the thread.

When I post that webpage (actually it will be a series of them..), watch what happens here, and see how the same old things are posted over and over and over again, and reality and proof are ignored and derided.

That's what ATS is about these days.

Enjoy.

Added PS - not that the back slapping that goes on at ATS counts for much, but check the stars on the posts a page back - your first complaint versus the post you complained about... Now I'm sure that ratio (6:1in my favour..) will change now that I've drawn attention to it, but right now it seems that any members/lurkers that might be reading this thread are not, I repeat NOT (for some inexplicable reason) jumping to your defence and agreeing with your take on my 'tone'. Quite the contrary, it appears...

This next little bit is directed generally to all posters hereabouts (myself included), not just you BiB..

Sometimes, when excrement is posted, there are only so many words to describe it, and not all of them are pleasant.. Maybe a thicker skin is required? And if you have little in the way of relevant knowledge or valid information or sensible debate to offer, perhaps there are better ways to expend those electrons...
edit on 25-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: added the added ps



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Added PS - not that the back slapping that goes on at ATS counts for much, but check the stars on the posts a page back - your first complaint versus the post you complained about... Now I'm sure that ratio (6:1..) will change now that I've drawn attention to it, but right now it seems that any members/lurkers that might be reading this thread are not, I repeat NOT (for some inexplicable reason) jumping to your defence and agreeing with your take on my 'tone'. Quite the contrary, it appears...


And yet I don't give a rats rear...
Your posts are like weed's, long and nothing usefull..
Ohh, I actually meant Weedwhacker but it came out sounding about right anyway..


This thread is now full of backslappers that are more than happy to star rude posts..
I will add though that most have stopped the rude tones you employ when it comes to me because I take the time to message them with my thoughts..

But anyways, keep up the good work..
It's easy being rude on a website..
Much harder in real life...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
This guy does a good job supporting his theories, but what I don't understand is, with all of the technology we have, WHY fake a moon landing? Why is it hard to believe that we went there when we have rovers on Mars and such?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
This guy does a good job supporting his theories, but what I don't understand is, with all of the technology we have, WHY fake a moon landing? Why is it hard to believe that we went there when we have rovers on Mars and such?


Most of the debate revolves around "Manned" missions..
Whether or not Man can travel in space..
No one since the Apollo missions has gone beyond Earth's orbit..
No "Man" has been to Mars...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ahhhhh I gotcha, that makes more sense now. Thanks



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by apodictic
This guy does a good job supporting his theories, but what I don't understand is, with all of the technology we have, WHY fake a moon landing? Why is it hard to believe that we went there when we have rovers on Mars and such?


Most of the debate revolves around "Manned" missions..
Whether or not Man can travel in space..
No one since the Apollo missions has gone beyond Earth's orbit..
No "Man" has been to Mars...


BiB, and you'll note I am asking very nicely.. I gather you agree that JW "does a good job supporting his theories".

So may I ask you (and apodictic) to be specific and tell the forum which particular 'theory' of his you find most compelling, and best supported.

I shall then engage you in a point by point debate, in a most courteous fashion...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Umm really? This guy is impressive? Seems pretty sloppy to me.
He tests the static charge theory with a balloon??? And some of you guys buy that??? WOW

Umm, look... I'm no scientist but... umm. you know that there are a lot of differences between that guy's studio and the moon right?

I mean... gravity, an atmosphere. Think maybe those things might call the validity of his ridiculous experiment into question?

How about the fact that he apparently makes no reference to the material of the NASA flags or the one that he used?

How about, he doesn't make any reference to the charge level that the space suit might have had, or the charge level of the balloon.

It's an interesting video, certainly not compelling evidence of anything though. It kinda reminds me of the star wars kid video.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Mate, your type of tone is why ATS is not like people tell me it use to be..
No one posts much good stuff here anymore and many good posters have left due to rude ignorant posters such as yourself..


It's difficult to maintain a civil tone when the premise of the thread is offensive. Jarrah White is an ignorant and insecure little man who needs to tear others down so he can feel better about himself. He does this by accusing those who are scientifically and historically literate of being either liars or gullible fools. He does this in attempt to appear smarter than everyone else in the whole world, but he only convinces those who are stupider than he is. There it is: every word Jarrah speaks is intended as a punch in the face. He wants to offend people who are better educated than he is and exploit those who aren't. His poisonous anti-social personality seeps into the very marrow of this thread. You are either for him or against him. If you even entertain the possibility that he has a point, he's won: you have given him credibility.

One of the reasons that ATS is losing good posters is because they become frustrated that pointless, self serving spam threads like this are allowed to churn on for so long. Over three hundred pages have gone by and FoosM is still harping on a point that was cleared up on page 2!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Wait wait... sorry, I should have included this in my last post.

He tests whether astronauts walking outside on the moon could have made the flags move by walking past his bed?

BAHAHAHAHA

I am quite seriously concerned about this guy's mental health. That's not meant to be a dig or an insult. I truly think he needs to speak to someone.

For that matter, if someone thinks that the conditions in their bedroom are sufficiently similar to those on the moon that it could make for a legitimate test - well they might need to have their head checked also.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Your posts are like weed's, long and nothing usefull..



Frankly if you find nothing useful in his posts it explains why you have difficulty in understanding the information presented in this thread.

You may not like the 'tone' of some posts, fair enough. I however am sick to death of posters simply ignoring factual information and bleating on about rubbish that was dealt with 300 pages ago. You should be able to understand why some posters have a short fuse with people that rehash the same arguments that have been de-bunked ad nauseam in this and other threads.

I'm yet to see a single valid point being made that could point to the landings being hoaxed, and yet this keeps going 'round in circles with the same arguments being dealt with over and over and over...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How long did it take to set up each flag?? AND< only one needed to do it, while the other did something else.



Originally posted by FoosM
Since you brought it up


So it seems that it did take two astronauts to allegedly set up the flag based on the video above.

I just can't understand why they would repeat this excruciating ordeal 6 times. Yes, 6 times.

If science was the priority, which it should have been on Apollo 12 - 17 then this ridiculous excercise of erecting a flag on each and every mission becomes even more absurd.

Any scientist would agree with this. Precious, invaluable time spend erecting another flag.

Pardon the pun, but this is the biggest flag that they were not genuine missions.

Subtract the 50 minutes spent setting up flags from A12-A17 and instead, they could be taking just one picture of the stars. Where is that picture?


edit on 25-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added word 'allegedly'



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 322  323  324    326  327  328 >>

log in

join