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: 34
377
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anyone else believe that going to the moon is easier than filming a convincing moonwalk here on earth?

Keep in mind answering 'yes' means you are saying that the Nation who went to the moon could not even film a convincing moonwalk scene here on earth.


Convincing as in making almost everyone believe it actually happened, definitely yes. But this is of course not limited just to the film material.




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Why are you calling it the "internet occam's razor"?
It's just Occam's Razor...period. And it's been around for far longer than the internet.

Your obvious unfamiliarity with the title of that concept, tells me that you haven't really studied the concept itself. And should probably stop talking about it, like the sciences you keep butchering to prove your failing point.

You didn't even quote the real Occam's Razor.
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Occam's doesn't mean that the simplest action is correct. In this case, not going to the Moon. It says that if you can go to the Moon in 2 vehicles, instead of 3/4/5/etc. Then you should go in 2 vehicles, or even 1 if you can manage it.

Anyways, I counter Occam's with "The principle of plenitude".
"Anything that can happen, will happen."

It's funny that you try to attack us on a philosophical level.
Can't defeat the REAL science eh?

reply to post by dragnet53
 


Instead of the personal attack, and calling them a clown. Why don't you stick to the topic?

Why don't you try and show us how we are incorrect?
Not up the the challenge?

BTW, Global warming is irrelevant. But way to try and derail/hijack the topic.

reply to post by dragnet53
 


Really?

Where did you notice this?
Exactly how "fast" was it?
How is this even relevant?

Care to extrapolate, instead of popping out useless one-liners?

reply to post by Exuberant1
 


This is further proof, that you don't understand the Razor.

As I noted above, the Razor isn't about the simplest ACTION.
It's about the simplest SOLUTION.

The way your using it is thus...
"Since bicycles are simpler than cars, bicycles prove cars were never invented."

"Since being quiet is simpler than talking, silence proves nobody ever talks."

"Since lying down is simpler than walking, lying down proves that no one ever walked."

Again, you do NOT understand the Razor, and should stop talking about it. You are just embarrassing yourself.

Is this more proof, that you cannot beat us on the real science?

Is this your new tactic?
You just gonna keep on spouting OCCAM OCCAM OCCAM?
Even though you've shown that you don't really understand it.

Why not defeat the science with science, instead of tenuous philosophical ideas about correctness?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   




Blasting craters for a new section of the Cinder Lakes outside Flagstaff, Ariz. (July 1968). USGS Astrogeology constructed a mockup of a section of the moon’s Sea of Tranquillity in a cinder field to aid with training and time-and-motion studies. USGS Astrogeology Science Center image.




NASA during Apollo, a Nazi ridden racist organization

All of a sudden Nazis are trustworthy because they via NASA claim to have sent men to the moon? What did Hitler say about the "bigger the lie..."?



So where-o-where to begin.
It looks like I have to wade through a lot of dis-info and distraction by seasoned
propaganda pushers.


The Moon Rocks and Reflectors:
Here NASA Scientists defend both but reveal...

"...and they came back in a box marked 'from the moon"



Temperature on the moon:
I see the same old tricks of distraction with silly explanations mixed with narrow-minded thinking going on here.
Who cares how hot or cold the surface of the moon actually was. Its a secondary problem.

The primary problem is the sun basting and boiling the LM and Astronots!
At no point in any mission was the Sun ever blocked from DIRECTLY roasting the LM.
So does anybody want to claim that the LM and the Astronots were not under constant full direct sunlight? And that this direct sunlight was somehow not radiating at full strength?

NASA claimed they had to rotate the CM to keep the temperature distributed evenly.
So that one side would not get too hot, and the other too cold. Why wasnt this a problem for the LM? Because the LM had better shielding? More advanced air-conditioning?


Communication:
All info came via NASA and its partners.
All the photos, all the footage, all the samples, everything
NASA has a chart of all the communication centers that managed to chart Apollo to the moon. The chart shows that most centers only covered only parts of the trip. Most covered, from what I recall, LEO. And any center that managed to cover the entire trip were NASA run stations.
What about the radio HAMs?
Jarrah W covers it in his Ham Sandwich series

And I like to see some REAL debunking of his findings.

Could it have been simulated
See what NASA has to say about it:



Radiation:
Apollo Astronots were not in danger of radiation because they never went to the moon.
But any future Astronauts would be because:


Unfortunately, the prediction and forecasting of solar activity and space weather are severely hampered by incomplete understanding of how the Sun affects interplanetary space and the local environments of Earth, the Moon, and Mars.


I like un4g1v3n1's videos on the subject matter


And that posted video of how the astronots passed through the radbelts is off since the VABs are much larger than what is being portrayed, meaning
the astros would have gone through the more intense regions.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal

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


Wrong answer!



DSN currently consists of three deep-space communications facilities placed approximately 120 degrees apart around the world[3]. They are:
the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex outside of Barstow, California, United States;
the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex, 60 kilometres (37 mi) west of Madrid, Spain; and
the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex (CDSCC) in the Australian Capital Territory, 40 kilometres (25 mi) southwest of Canberra, Australia near the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve.






DSN is part of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).







Eberhardt Rechtin suggested what is now known as the "wing concept". The wing approach involves constructing a new section or "wing" to the main building at each of the three involved DSN sites. The wing would include a MSFN control room and the necessary interface equipment to accomplish the following: i. Permit tracking and two-way data transfer with either spacecraft during lunar operations. 2. Permit tracking and two-way data transfer with the combined spacecraft during the flight to the Moon 3. Provide backup for the collocated MSFN site passive track (spacecraft to ground RF links) of the Apollo spacecraft during trans-lunar and trans-earth phases. With this arrangement, the DSN station could be quickly switched from a deep-space mission to Apollo and back again. GSFC personnel would operate the MSFN equipment completely independently of DSN personnel. Deep space missions would not be compromised nearly as much as if the entire station's equipment and personnel were turned over to Apollo for several weeks.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Problem you have, with this sort of cognitive disconnect, is you are relying on WAY too many YouTube cartoons!

This is the same old, same old claptrap that they just keep repeating, and you're falling for it.

BUT, inundating your post with several (junk) videos means that now it is going to take a heck of a lot of time to discuss properly.

In the mean time, do yourself a favor, so as to stop further embarrassment, and see if you have a library in your city. Go read, and stop using the YT garbage --- because most of those "Hoax" people (ones who make the videos, or compile them, or post them on their YT 'channels') are complete fools. Crap "science", misrepresentations abound. (PS...especially troubling is the ridiculous efforts to use the fact of Nazi scientists to somehow "prove" the "Hoax"! The USSR also had their fair share of Nazis, too, post WWII).

In FACT (and this is another reason to go out and read a history book or two) a lot of the success of the German scientists, in the Nazi regime, came from their infiltration...it was SPYING...on American rocketry efforts in the 1930s.

"JW" (the 'idolized' topic of this thread) is a prime example of the shenanigans at play, here. The continued nonsense....he's just the latest in a serious of buffoons.....the 'Grand Poohbah" honor goes to Bart Sibrel, though, in that category.

(I toss in Bill Kaysing, and Robert Rene' as well. Not to be all ad hom towards them, but....they actually deserve the mention, in this disparaging manner, because of their sheer ridiculousness. I will also go so far as to question their sanity; or at least their ability to grasp reason and logic...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also find this bit, from your post, particularly offensive:


...the astronots



I seriously doubt that to be a "typo" (if it is, and you can convince me of that fact, then I apologize for being offended) BUT, I see that vile term used all too often on YouTube, by a certain very prolific poster from the UK...starts with "green" and ends with "magoos".

Same advice, as above, re: the library----go look up the MEANING of 'Astronaut', and just exactly what qualifies a person to be assigned that honor. (Same criteria, by International agreement, holds true for ANY person, regardless of National affiliation).





[edit on 7 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The network is a facility of NASA, and is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Interplanetary Network Directorate (IND) manages the program within JPL.


Ok you are actually right they did work for NASA. But my point still stands...the signals were being trasmitted from the moon.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



NASA during Apollo, a Nazi ridden racist organization

All of a sudden Nazis are trustworthy because they via NASA claim to have sent men to the moon? What did Hitler say about the "bigger the lie..."?


Oskar Schindler was a Nazi. Does this mean the 1200 Jews he saved from the camps were a hoax, or is he just still an evil person?





Communication:
All info came via NASA and its partners.
All the photos, all the footage, all the samples, everything
NASA has a chart of all the communication centers that managed to chart Apollo to the moon. The chart shows that most centers only covered only parts of the trip. Most covered, from what I recall, LEO. And any center that managed to cover the entire trip were NASA run stations.
What about the radio HAMs?
Jarrah W covers it in his Ham Sandwich series

And I like to see some REAL debunking of his findings.


His video on hams is so full of errors, that its impossible to include them all. First of all, he claims Hams are only allotted certain frequencies. That is true, as far as transmission goes. If they have a receiver and antenna that can do it, they can tune to any frequency they want. What an utter fool Jarrah is.

But then he later completely forgets his argument and admits Hams did track Apollo missions. But he complains that they didn't track them "the whole way".

Uh, earth to Jarrah (heh, see what I just did there???), it was impossible to track Apollo from one position on earth because the earth rotates.

Since Jarrah admits Apollo was transmitting from the moon, he better figure out how the hell they got the voices up there.

And he ignored practically all of the people who did the tracking:

Apollo missions tracked by independent parties


Just more evidence Jarrah White is a total fraud.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anyone else believe that going to the moon is easier than filming a convincing moonwalk here on earth?

Keep in mind answering 'yes' means you are saying that the Nation who went to the moon could not even film a convincing moonwalk scene here on earth.


It would be cheaper to film it here then sending people to the moon. Just look at CGI graphics today. It is cheaper to create weather on adobe after effects and make it rain, then let say wait months for the right weather occurrence to happen.

Just look at the move DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and all of that was CGI animated even some of the sunsets were CGI. They said it was cheaper. That is how Americans work.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


And you honestly can't tell its CGI?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


here's a better listing of all the 3rd party evidence:
www.search.com...

with actual links to the evidence!!!


I specially like this report here: www.svengrahn.pp.se...

[edit on 7-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

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.)



Oh come on use your imagination!
Hammer and Feather, who says it was a real Hammer and a Feather!?
Plastic bag, who says it was a real plastic bag?
Sand being shuffled by astros when walking, animation or a composited image.

But if they really wanted to fake it in a vacuum it was quite possible.
Presenting:



The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. When completed, it was the world's largest vacuum chamber.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or they also had the:


Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory

The SESL Chamber A is the largest of the Johnson Space Center thermal-vacuum test facilities. Its usable test volume and high-fidelity space simulation capabilities are adaptable to thermal-vacuum tests of a wide variety of test articles. The major structural elements of the chamber are the rotatable floor, the 40-foot diameter access floor and the dual manlocks at the floor level and at the 31-foot level. Test articles are normally inserted into the chamber by means of overhead cranes and a dolly and track. The dual manlocks are chambers that provide a means for the test crew to move from ambient air pressure to the thermal-vacuum environment and back. When the inner door is bolted, either of the manlocks can be used as an altitude chamber for independent tests.




In mid-1968, prior to the first manned Apollo mission, astronauts Joe Engle, Vance Brand, and Joe Kerwin spent a week (16-24 June) in a simulated mission using an Apollo CSM designated “Block II thermal vacuum test article”, or “2TV-1” (which was identical, except for some flight-qualified equipment, to Apollo 7’s CSM-101) inside SESL chamber A.




The larger of the two chambers provides simulated space and lunar surface environments... simulating a lunar plane 45 feet in diameter... the lunar plane can be controlled...




SESL houses two large thermal-vacuum chambers with solar simulation capabilities... carbon arc modules simulate the unfiltered solar light/heat of the Sun



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


But if they really wanted to fake it in a vacuum it was quite possible.
Presenting:



The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. When completed, it was the world's largest vacuum chamber.





There are numerous videos from the Lunar Rover as they drive from one station to the next, sometimes over a kilometer. How in the name of God did they drive a lunar rover over a kilometer in a vacuum chamber less than 100 feet wide?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Flash of insight: the reason why it is so hard to prove the reality of the moon landing to some people is because it's usually based on science, of which people are proudly ignorant. What about approaching it from the other angle: film production! It's very easy to say "it was all special effects." Okay, here are the production requirements: a full week of 24/7 scripted dialogue. No improvisation is permitted, because there are numerous exact cues that must be hit precisely every few minutes for the whole production to stay in synch. Numerous SFX sequences requiring multiple processes must be edited together seamlessly and streamed to multiple distribution points in "real time." The footage on the lunar surface must be shot from multiple angles (eg; TV camera, 16mm camera, still camera) and be absolutely identical, lest some community college drop-out in Australia notice a continuity error. Every radio-telescope and ham radio on the planet must simultaneously be disrupted and the bogus programming be fed to them. A gigantic rocket needs to be constructed and launched into the air, but made to disappear afterwards. A bogus "space capsule" has to be delivered, on live TV, to the middle of the Pacific Ocean and dropped in by parachute. All FX must be done "practical," not CGI... if only because CGI didn't exist at the time. Now, just how easy do you suppose all this is? And, BTW, where are all the out-takes? Most films have a 12:1 shooting ratio. This means each shot gets done twelve times to get just the right take. By that standard, each mission would produce twelve weeks worth of out-takes. Not one minute of out-takes exists anywhere.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by DJW001]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So you're just going to keep lying about things?

I already proved you're wrong about the Sun being to hot. I also proved that you're quoting from MOONMOVIE.COM instead of credible neutral sights. In my post linked here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nothing you post is credible.

I would go so far as to say, that your "registration date" suggests you're just an alt for one of the other Apollo-deniers. Or someone from MOONMOVIE.com themselves...possibly even Jarrah White.

reply to post by FoosM
 


And, again. Nothing you post is credible.

Since you refuse to link your sources, there is no choice except to assume that all of your information is coming from biased websites. And probably MOONMOVIE.com affiliated with Jarrah White.

Anyways, hateeternal is RIGHT about Honeysuckle creek being part of the network DURING APOLLO. You are wrong FoosM, you were using the CURRENT LOCATIONS.

MANNED SPACE FLIGHT NETWORK:
en.wikipedia.org...


After Apollo, the MSFN no longer needed the large antennas that had been used for lunar communication, which were eventually given over to the DSN. In 1985, the antenna at Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station was moved to the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex (CDSCC) DSN site, and the antenna at Fresnedillas was moved to the existing Robledo DSN location. The Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex antenna is still in its original location.[3]


Wait just a minute. There's something else familiar on this page.


The solution came in early 1965 at a meeting at NASA Headquarters, when Eberhardt Rechtin suggested what is now known as the "wing concept". The wing approach involves constructing a new section or "wing" to the main building at each of the three involved DSN sites.


Hmmm, where have I seen this before...

Oh, I know.


Originally posted by FoosM


Eberhardt Rechtin suggested what is now known as the "wing concept". The wing approach involves constructing a new section or "wing" to the main building at each of the three involved DSN sites.


Well, I was wrong your source was credible enough. But you've been caught chopping up quotes to prove your failing point.

Gee, this would be the second time I've caught you manipulation and editing quotes for your own interest.

reply to post by hateeternal
 


No, you were right all along. FoosM obfuscated the fact, that he was applying a MODERN location list to the Apollo-era.

reply to post by dragnet53
 


You or Hollywood might "work" the "cheap" way. But that doesn't apply to America or NASA. Hollywood using CGI to save a buck, doesn't prove that Apollo was faked. And is a ludicrous idea, IMO.

reply to post by FoosM
 


Still failing to link your sources?

Yup, none of this is credible either. Until we can examine the source for ourselves.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by Byteman]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 

Thanks for putting some common sense in this thread. I agree that the media only allow what tptb can use. It surprises me that no one mentions this here.

It is a sad time to be alive, right here at the cusp on the 'digital revolution', as bono calls it.

My belief is that other civilizations have been here, and will be here again.

The civilization that chooses to use electricity in a sacred way, not in a smiling bob extenze fashion, pummeling us at all times, from all sides with the message of greed and lusts- I say that if a civilization comes along in a few million years and uses electricity and technology in good ways, then there may be a chance that everyone will learn the truths of the universe and consciousness. This is NOT going to happen in our race's duration. There is a general scorn of wonder and perfection in our time. This has been made in to a mold which determines whether you are, basically fit for society. Let me give an example of what I am trying to state:

I attended some classes on machining using CNC programming. One day, I asked if it were possible to create not a perfectly flat surface, but one shaped with a subtle rise of a couple of thousandths of an inch, over a several foot length of the plane... Before I could even get a response there was laughter. Even the instructor wanted to know what the hell I was getting at..

My experience in manufacturing is that the best components for metal working were often hand fitted with subtle tailorings designed to offset wear, which only a human could do. To set a machine up to do what I was suggesting is near impossible. But instead of glimpsing my reason for asking, there was a bit of derision. Apparently I was interfering with the program. I learned, at the end of the day, that I was doomed to return to a metal manufacturing shop which was owned and operated -and destroyed- by human savages who thought nothing of leaving a .030" blob of scrap beneath a die before the first stroke would be taken. Over and over again. It got to the point that you'd be fired for bringing up 'scrap under the die' as a reason for failure. This is a common social practice today. This is why we cannot even understand how the pyramids were built. I do not believe that a stone mason would have been criticized for seeking a perfect fit, back in the day. I believe that today he would be fired for not being one of the boys.

Our understanding of the evolution of technology is lost. Moreover, the media is in complete cahoots with tptb. Rather than using technology (electricity) to enlighten each other, it is being used to machine-gun us all to death. Everyone knows who is in charge, so much so that no one dares breathe a hint of it.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by WWu777
 

Thanks for putting some common sense in this thread...


- You're a funny guy. Next time, maybe you should try READING the thread? Apart from anything else, that would also have told you that WWu777 has vanished (last post about a week ago), and doesn't seem to want to back up his claims.

(There are several outstanding questions waiting on your return, brave WWu... Don't worry, I won't forget..)


I agree that the media only allow what tptb can use. It surprises me that no one mentions this here.

Maybe because it's irrelevant to the topic - if you think it is pertinent, surely you would have specified exactly what it is you believe is being withheld. But no, just handwaving - you make airy-fairy claims with nothing to back them up.


It is a sad time to be alive, right here at the cusp on the 'digital revolution', as bono calls it.

Yes, it does indeed leave some inadequately-equipped folks behind, doesn't it? Especially those lacking a good science education. Never mind.



My belief is that other civilizations have been here, and will be here again.

Well, jolly good for you. And that has what exactly to do with the subject at hand? Mind wandering a little?


... chooses to use electricity in a sacred way...
... not in a smiling bob extenze fashion ...
... general scorn of wonder and perfection ...
... been made in to a mold which determines whether you are.. fit for society...
... I attended some classes on machining using CNC programming...
... One day, I asked if it were possible to create not a perfectly flat surface...
... Before I could even get a response there was laughter...
... the instructor wanted to know what the hell I was getting at..
... instead of glimpsing my reason for asking, there was a bit of derision...
... I was doomed to return to a metal manufacturing shop ...
... owned and operated -and destroyed- by human savages ...
... Rather than using technology (electricity) to enlighten each other,
it is being used to machine-gun us all to death....


Woah...!



Errr, oookaaay, then. I think I just got an answer to my last question, although 'wandering' was possibly not the correct word...

(backs cautiously out of room...)

Gee, gosh, Dave, thanks so much for coming. I feel so... enlightened!!!

Bye.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Flash of insight: the reason why it is so hard to prove the reality of the moon landing to some people is because it's usually based on science, of which people are proudly ignorant. What about approaching it from the other angle: film production! It's very easy to say "it was all special effects." Okay, here are the production requirements: a full week of 24/7 scripted dialogue. No improvisation is permitted, because there are numerous exact cues that must be hit precisely every few minutes for the whole production to stay in synch. Numerous SFX sequences requiring multiple processes must be edited together seamlessly and streamed to multiple distribution points in "real time." The footage on the lunar surface must be shot from multiple angles (eg; TV camera, 16mm camera, still camera) and be absolutely identical, lest some community college drop-out in Australia notice a continuity error. Every radio-telescope and ham radio on the planet must simultaneously be disrupted and the bogus programming be fed to them. A gigantic rocket needs to be constructed and launched into the air, but made to disappear afterwards. A bogus "space capsule" has to be delivered, on live TV, to the middle of the Pacific Ocean and dropped in by parachute. All FX must be done "practical," not CGI... if only because CGI didn't exist at the time. Now, just how easy do you suppose all this is? And, BTW, where are all the out-takes? Most films have a 12:1 shooting ratio. This means each shot gets done twelve times to get just the right take. By that standard, each mission would produce twelve weeks worth of out-takes. Not one minute of out-takes exists anywhere.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by DJW001]


Nice try, unfortuately CGI and FX seem to go right over the head of most of these people as well...
I think the key would be to find out why it is so terribly important for apollo to not have happened?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Problem you have, with this sort of cognitive disconnect, is you are relying on WAY too many YouTube cartoons!

This is the same old, same old claptrap that they just keep repeating, and you're falling for it.

BUT, inundating your post with several (junk) videos means that now it is going to take a heck of a lot of time to discuss properly.

[edit on 7 May 2010 by weedwhacker]


Junk videos?



Aron Ranen - Directed Did We Go?, co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco. He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts.


Jumping to too many conclusions might land you in a hole you cant get out of.

I purposely used a video made by a MOON BELIEVER who simply wanted to prove we landed on the moon, but during his research he changed his mind!



Ranen states in Did We Go? "at this point right now I'm about 75% believing we went". On July 20, 2009, Ranen appeared on Geraldo at Large to argue that no one has landed on the moon.


Yeah that tends to happen when you really do research about things you thought you knew everything about.


So maybe instead of calling a documentary from an award winning filmmaker youtube junk, spend some time to watch it and learn a thing or too.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


My mind wanders to what is important, to me. I draw information from wide fields and use it as I may. I don't feel like feeding your superiority trip, but I'll let you in on a little something-what's going on in space is deadly serious and completely under wraps. You do not want to know about what I am thinking about any more than I have been forced to. That is correct, jackson, I have nothing to back my claims. In fact I pulled it outta my butt!

I feel no remorse for my words, only for the edits. Was NASA really on the moon? How the hell would I know? How would anyone know? When was the last time you heard anything important or truthful come from the media (which IS tptb btw).



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM

Just watched the Ham Radio piece.
Just some nuggets:
"Apollo was transmitting on a band Hams weren't allowed to send on. How could they have listened in?"
"They didn't track it all the way, just in orbit around the moon"
"FCC says wiretapping is illegal!!!"



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join