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: 375
377
<< 372  373  374    376  377  378 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Gawd your posts are long..
Pity they don't say much though....

Now, the whole "bigger" debate started with MY comment that the earth is more than 10 x bigger than the moon..
You deciding to change it to magnification is irrelevant..
It wasn't YOUR comment...
And you use this from DJW.??

In fairness, however, it would only be four times wider, which is what CHARLZ is talking about.

I agree with DJW, it is 4 x wider..
But it's also 4 x taller..
Which makes it 16 x bigger...

Now, do you deny the earth is 16 times bigger.???

A silly example..
Say mum gives you a bowl of ice-cream...
I've been a good boy but you haven't (too much whining or something) so she gives me a bowl twice as big...

By your concept of "bigger" I'd get 8 times more ice-cream...Cool huh..


Now this other little thing..My post...

They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that[sic]??


Was in reply to this post by DJW...

What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!


So your issue is.????????

Try to take your time replying and therefore keep it short..
edit on 2-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Hello,

This relates to JW's video "MoonFaker: Clementine, SELENE & Telescopes. PART 1"



I posted this list a while ago with an explanation of why I think the newspapers hype this topic in the hope that people will just accept what they say.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now I've discovered a new dubious article to add. The list keeps getting bigger and bigger.


2009: India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.www.physorg.com...


I've added this to the list of unsubstantiated claims by newspapers the world over.
We are yet to see one clear and undeniable photo of the 6 lunar landers, 3 rovers etc.
What we do see however are pixels.

It's yet another article claiming proof of the landings, and another article that actually shows nothing.


"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...


2011: No conclusive photos


2002: World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface."


2011: No conclusive photos


2005: Spacecraft to check out Apollo Moon sites
www.usatoday.com...


2011: No conclusive photos


2009: Proof! Probe photos of Apollo landing sites reveal to doubters that man DID walk on the Moon
www.dailymail.co.uk...


2011: No conclusive photos

Now I've got another one to add:


2009: India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax
www.physorg.com...


And once again in 2011: No conclusive photos


Originally posted by DJW001
The media aren't making promises, they're over-hyping telescopes.


Really, you think? Why do you think they might do that ?


edit on 2-3-2011 by ppk55 because: added reply to djw + spelling



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I've added this to the list of unsubstantiated claims by newspapers the world over.
We are yet to see one clear and undeniable photo of the 6 lunar landers, 3 rovers etc.
What we do see however are pixels.


You will never see anything that you will be unable to deny. You deny any photograph that contradicts your beliefs, deny any statement you do not agree with and deny all the evidence that Jarrah White is a pompous fraud. You can continue denying things for the rest of your life if you wish.




Originally posted by DJW001
The media aren't making promises, they're over-hyping telescopes.



Really, you think? Why do you think they might do that ?


Funding, you think?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by manmental
 


Dear manmental, I have a question for you. In another Forum on this Board, different thread topic (but related, in a way) you wrote:


Originally posted by manmental

You have no idea about special effects.

The theory is idiotic.

>[edit for brevity, byWW]



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Are you manmental? DO you have more than one ATS user account?

"....not done on the moon...."

Rubbish!!


Enjoy your fantasies......



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Lets see ppk55 we have pictures taken on the Moon by the astronauts, we have documentation that gives details relatve to craters etc etc AND the LRO images have objects at recorded locations!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Hello,


It's yet another article claiming proof of the landings, and another article that actually shows nothing.


"The space telescope photographed the landing sites of Apollo 15 and 17." AAP Oct 19, 2005.
ottawa.ctv.ca...




Wait a minute... what was the reason that Hubble couldn't take
photos of the moon again?


Studying the moon can be tricky, because the moon is too bright to be photographed with large, highly sensitive telescopes on the ground or with the Hubble Space Telescope. The moon's brightness can potentially damage such sensitive optical instruments. Less sensitive telescopes on the ground and on satellites, however, have given us some stunning images of the full moon. The moon can also be photographed using different light wavelengths, such as ultraviolet.

science.nasa.gov...

Nevermind, it had to do something with resolution...



edit on 2-3-2011 by FoosM because: added text



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Nevermind, it had to do something with resolution...


Correct:


Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.
Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:
hubblesite.org...

Hubble Site

Still no comment on my expose of Jarrah's Gemini X lie?

edit on 2-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Of course since you dont know much about photography ,optics& telescopes in general, moon is 230,000 miles avg distance , Telescope are designed for light gathering properties NOT out and out magnification. SO a little sum for you even if the Hubble could magnify 10,000x lets see

238,000/10,000=23.8 miles so the Moons surface would still look 23.8 miles away how big was the lander.


Simple terms just for you!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55
 


Lets see ppk55 we have pictures taken on the Moon by the astronauts, we have documentation that gives details relatve to craters etc etc AND the LRO images have objects at recorded locations!


Photos by the astronauts are not evidence.
And I have demonstrated fakery in their archives.

What PPK is getting at is, why has only NASA been able to take photos of NASA moon landings?
There has been promises by various other sources, but they never pan out. Its getting ridiculous actually.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Now, do you deny the earth is 16 times bigger.???

It's ~3.7 times bigger in width/height/magnification/enlargement (important if you are looking at it)
It's ~13 times bigger in area (important if you are painting it)
It's ~50 times bigger in volume (important if you are eating it)
It's ~81 times bigger in mass (important if you are shipping it)

Can you spot the issue?


A silly example..

Simplistic, imo.

Say mum gives you a bowl of ice-cream...

Are you going to be LOOKING at it or EATING IT? See above - volume is probably the 'BIG' thing you are now interested in.

I love the way you carefully cherry pick your irrelevant 'analogies'.



They drilled 10 feet into solid volcanic rock?
How long did that that[sic]??

Was in reply to this post by DJW...

What does moisture have to do with anything? Under the thin layer of dust, the Moon is solid volcanic rock. The tube slid into the pre-drilled hole due to gravity!


So your issue is.????????


Smple. YOU DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE that your incredulity was both unwarranted and wrong. You just let the statement stand, so others could quote it later and help to promote the lost cause.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Still no comment on my expose of Jarrah's Gemini X lie?

edit on 2-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



I dont see the "lie"
I see that JW was describing a pattern.
But what I was waiting for was your analysis on the other "re-used" materials.
You only focused on Gemini, what about Apollo?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Smple. YOU DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE that your incredulity was both unwarranted and wrong. You just let the statement stand, so others could quote it later and help to promote the lost cause.

Glad you know exactly how I think......

lol, I saw DJW's comment had already been corrected, should I just post for the sake of posting, heck maybe I'd get stars??

Obviously you have a bee in your bonnet...
Simple answer is to take your bonnet off and relax..


We seem to have covered all your gripes now so I think my original suggestion of ignoring each other would be good..



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55
 


Lets see ppk55 we have pictures taken on the Moon by the astronauts, we have documentation that gives details relatve to craters etc etc AND the LRO images have objects at recorded locations!


Photos by the astronauts are not evidence.
And I have demonstrated fakery in their archives.

What PPK is getting at is, why has only NASA been able to take photos of NASA moon landings?
There has been promises by various other sources, but they never pan out. Its getting ridiculous actually.



No YOU THINK you have demostrated fakery BUT come on when the reason for no stars in pictures was beyond YOU do you honestly think you have!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ppk55
 


Lets see ppk55 we have pictures taken on the Moon by the astronauts, we have documentation that gives details relatve to craters etc etc AND the LRO images have objects at recorded locations!


Photos by the astronauts are not evidence.
And I have demonstrated fakery in their archives.

What PPK is getting at is, why has only NASA been able to take photos of NASA moon landings?
There has been promises by various other sources, but they never pan out. Its getting ridiculous actually.



No YOU THINK you have demostrated fakery BUT come on when the reason for no stars in pictures was beyond YOU do you honestly think you have!


I know I demonstrated fakery.
Thats what I just said.

The reasons for no stars in the photos make no sense if they were actually on the moon.
They could have easily set up equipment and cameras to do so.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foosm the reason for no stars was EXPOSURE have you forgotten that already!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001

Still no comment on my expose of Jarrah's Gemini X lie?

edit on 2-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



I dont see the "lie"
I see that JW was describing a pattern.
But what I was waiting for was your analysis on the other "re-used" materials.
You only focused on Gemini, what about Apollo?




Jarrah was the one that brought up Gemini, accused NASA of lying and made a video about the photo. Not us.
It has also been quite convincingly shown in this thread that Jarrah made a bunch of speculative assumptions on his part rather than looking for the actual truth which DJ showed. That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk. And Collins himself said there were never any photos of his spacewalk. It was the PUBLISHER of Collins' book that altered and re-used the photo. White made some serious accusations against Collins and NASA calling them liars in his video "Carrying the Liar". I doubt he will retract that claim even though it was thoroughly debunked here.

Jarrah's videos are ridiculous at best. Does he really think he's going to re-create the proper lunar conditions for proper scientific demonstration in his bedroom and basement? It's almost as bad as Rene's hardware store rubber glove vacuum demonstration. Jarrah running past the flag was laughable and rubbing a balloon on his head to demonstrate lunar static charges was just as equally pathetic. Jarrah is not right in the head. Nor was Rene. Aspergers syndrome perhaps?

The most pathetic part of all is that Jarrah, who has a history of making personal insults laced with vulgarity towards those who disagrees with him, turns around and makes videos complaining about people making character assassinations and insulting him. He has insulted and made character assassinations MANY, MANY times. Towards some of whom are actually trained and successful in their respective scientific fields. There is nothing more annoying than a HYPOCRITE. And that is what Jarrah White is.



edit on 2-3-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Wow - JW is still seen by some as being credible in any way shape or form??

He got hammered over at imdb in 2009 too.....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I know I demonstrated fakery.
Thats what I just said.


I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that part. Please provide a link to that one instance.
edit on 2-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont see the "lie"
I see that JW was describing a pattern.
But what I was waiting for was your analysis on the other "re-used" materials.
You only focused on Gemini, what about Apollo?


If I said that you claim you're Superman, then I don't need to prove you said it. I say that you claim to be Superman. It's not a lie until you prove otherwise, right? Wrong. Until you can find one single source that justifies Rene's statement, it is clearly a lie. Prove me wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 372  373  374    376  377  378 >>

log in

join