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: 376
377
<< 373  374  375    377  378  379 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


No you didnt miss it,
its called hysterical blindness.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk.


Here is your problem.
Collins IS NASA.
People who work for NASA represent NASA.
That was JW's point.
Collins could have told the publishers the picture was misleading and not to use it.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


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



wmd, I expected an answer like this from you.
Re-read my post again, you obviously are having an issue in comprehension.
Perhaps this is due to english not being your mother language?
Its that, or you are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


What exactly are you implying? Stop referring to me as Superman, thats making me feel uncomfortable.
And what does this have to do with discussing the other re-used shots in "double-shot"?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


DJW, no disrespect, but you are starting to babble. This is the type of post that should alert us all.
In hindsight we might say, the signs were always there. Please in future make your posts clear and concise.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 




Originally posted by DJW001
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.



DJW, no disrespect, but you are starting to babble. This is the type of post that should alert us all.
In hindsight we might say, the signs were always there. Please in future make your posts clear and concise.


That will teach me to try to put things into language even you can understand. The point is, Jarrah's claim is in itself a claim. Unless he can provide evidence that NASA made such a claim, his claim is false.

edit on 3-3-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct a typo that seems to be confusing certain people.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
That will reach me to try to put things into language even you can understand. The point is, Jarrah's claim is in itself a claim. Unless he can provide evidence that NASA made such a claim, his claim is false.


This is still not making sense.
"That will reach me" ... huh?
Please consider what I posted above.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




Originally posted by Facefirst
That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk.



Here is your problem.
Collins IS NASA.
People who work for NASA represent NASA.
That was JW's point.
Collins could have told the publishers the picture was misleading and not to use it.


Here is your problem: Collins is a private citizen. People who work for NASA do not speak for NASA unless they have been delegated or authorized to do so. Collins' book is a personal memoir, not an official statement by NASA. Nowhere does Collins or the publisher state that the cover and endpapers are a photograph of the actual space walk. On the contrary, if Rene and Jarrah had actually read the book instead of just looking at the pictures, they would have read a very suspenseful account of the spacewalk that explains why there are no photographs of it. Their claim is uninformed at best. Furthermore, even if Collins knew about the cover art, why would he be under any obligation to issue a disclaimer that it's anything but what it appears to be. Certainly no-one would think that it looks real. This would be like thinking that this represents a scene from Jenny McCarthy's every day life:


Source

Of course, here's the clincher: Rene says, and I quote:


Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?

NASA Mooned America

Collins' book was published in 1974. Unless someone can find a source that shows this photo appearing in 1966 as Rene claims, consider the lie busted.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
This would be like thinking that this represents a scene from Jenny McCarthy's every day life


You may like to treat this subject as a joke, but believe me, many don't.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to this ...


Originally posted by ppk55
Foos' post regarding the anomalous photo sequence of Schmit jumping into the LRV really needs to be researched further. I'll be looking into this shortly. Great find.

Original post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

However perhaps what everyone is overlooking here is the preposterous notion that an astronaut would attempt to 'jump' into/onto anything in a vacuum.

The very idea that these guys jumped, hopped, fell over, bounced up, played golf, did burn outs in the LRV, threw objects with reckless abandon etc. is beyond belief.

It is inconceivable that they would attempt any type of unnecessary risk in relation to how they moved about on the moon. Why would they risk 'jumping' into the LRV, potentially breaking their suit apart, when they didn't need to. This is a very important question.

Below is a video of the outlandish and high improbable risks they took on the moon. Every one of them potentially risking a rupture to their suit, resulting in an instant and deadly depressurization of their suit.

To put it simply, one rupture and their blood would boil.

Yet look at this ..



And now if you want to see how astronauts actually behave in a vacuum, please check out the many ISS repair missions. They are tediously boring, however when the operation is being played out for real, as it is these days, safety is paramount and all undue risks are avoided like the plague.






posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And what does this have to do with discussing the other re-used shots in "double-shot"?


Because Jarrah uses the same deception over and over; he takes a secondary source, performs some sort of complicated procedure to distract from the fact that he's not actually examining a NASA document, spots an erroneous caption or editing error, then waves his hands and says: "NASA claims..." despite the fact that the document he is examining is not from NASA. Usually these errors are just that, a mistake that slipped past the editor. For example, he says that NASA "re-uses" a photograph of the CSM in orbit because a caption in "For All Mankind" claims that it is a photograph of the Apollo 11 CSM in orbit around the Moon, whereas he suspects it is actually the CSM from Apollo 15. Does he go to the Apollo 11 archives to confirm the photo? No, of course not, because Apollo 11 didn't take any still photos of the CSM in lunar orbit. NASA never claimed anything otherwise. Instead, he treats the viewer to a complicated series of computer manipulations to rotate the photo. Sure enough, it matches a photo from Apollo 15. Naturally, he knew all along it was, just as he knew all along that NASA never said it was from Apollo 11. The whole point to the procedure was to make the viewer forget that Jarrah was not citing a NASA document. He then waves his hands and says "NASA claims..." knowing full well NASA never made any such claim! Who knows what editorial error may have happened at the publisher? Perhaps someone substituted the Apollo 15 photo for a grainy still from the 16mm movie camera on Apollo 11 and simply forgot to change the caption. The point is, time and again, Jarrah deliberately uses smoke and mirrors to conceal the fact that his statement that "NASA claims..." is a lie.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



I'm still waiting for you to respond to this ...




Does this look fragile to you? Do a bit of research on your own before posting ridiculous questions. Here's a start:
Apollo A7L Space Suit



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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.....


From what I read it looked like JW was the hammer
and Windley the nail.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No you didnt miss it,
its called hysterical blindness.


I didn't miss it because it never happened, otherwise you would have posted a link. Talk about hysterical blindness:



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Facefirst
That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk.


Here is your problem.
Collins IS NASA.
People who work for NASA represent NASA.
That was JW's point.
Collins could have told the publishers the picture was misleading and not to use it.



Here is YOUR problem:
Michael Collins left NASA in 1970.
The book wasn't published until 1974.
So Collins wasn't working for NASA.
He was telling his own story.
NASA was not lying like Jarrah claimed.
NASA never claimed the photo to be what the publisher did. NASA had nothing to do with the book.
Jarrah is either lying or really needs to stop with his "selective" research methods.

I'm going to guess most likely that the publisher took artistic liberties that have since been corrected.
I'm sure there is more to the story. Does anyone have a modern copy of the book?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 




Originally posted by Facefirst
That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk.



Here is your problem.
Collins IS NASA.
People who work for NASA represent NASA.
That was JW's point.
Collins could have told the publishers the picture was misleading and not to use it.


Here is your problem: Collins is a private citizen. People who work for NASA do not speak for NASA unless they have been delegated or authorized to do so. Collins' book is a personal memoir, not an official statement by NASA.


So are you telling me that Collins was not and is not under any contractual agreement to NASA ?
That he can say anything he wants about the organization and his so called historical feat?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



No you didnt miss it,
its called hysterical blindness.


I didn't miss it because it never happened, otherwise you would have posted a link. Talk about hysterical blindness:


Yep that what you get when you have too many shadows going different directions


Now this looks realistic:
c.photoshelter.com...
www.philippegatta.fr...
images.travelpod.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



And what does this have to do with discussing the other re-used shots in "double-shot"?


Because Jarrah uses the same deception over and over; he takes a secondary source, performs some sort of complicated procedure to distract from the fact that he's not actually examining a NASA document, spots an erroneous caption or editing error, then waves his hands and says: "NASA claims..."


No, thats not what his point was.
But I guess you interpret his videos differently than most others.
That has come across pretty clear.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Have a look at last couple of pages then - rather than the beginning.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No, thats not what his point was.
But I guess you interpret his videos differently than most others.
That has come across pretty clear.


Yes, I view them objectively and apply critical thinking. You should try it some time.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 




Originally posted by Facefirst
That truth being NASA never claimed the photo was of Collins' spacewalk.



Here is your problem.
Collins IS NASA.
People who work for NASA represent NASA.
That was JW's point.
Collins could have told the publishers the picture was misleading and not to use it.


Here is your problem: Collins is a private citizen. People who work for NASA do not speak for NASA unless they have been delegated or authorized to do so. Collins' book is a personal memoir, not an official statement by NASA.


So are you telling me that Collins was not and is not under any contractual agreement to NASA ?
That he can say anything he wants about the organization and his so called historical feat?




I don't know.

All you do is ask questions and distort points.

We provide information for you constantly. Most of which you seem to ignore. Go find out for yourself for once.

The whole point is that Jarrah made a false accusation against NASA because our little Aussie Jr. Detective has been shown over and over again to be an incompetent researcher.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 373  374  375    377  378  379 >>

log in

join