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: 438
377
<< 435  436  437    439  440  441 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I just wanted you to know that I am not a crook.


When I talked to Buzz on the moon .... it was real.



Buzz showed me the negatives .... it was real.



Jarrah White reading a book about space technology .... was it real????.


edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: jarrah white knows what he is talking about

edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: stealth edit




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
yup :-)

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


edit on 1/5/11 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 420CUMMINS
yup :-)


How do you have 79 posts if you registered on Registered: April 30, 2011..

79 posts in less than 24 hours? Are you producing any content or are you merely creating NOISE???

420CUMMINS you have some explaining to do.
edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: majore edit



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
FoosM
1. NASA has messy paperwork.
2. NASA is military, and should have consistent paperwork.
3. NASA may have deliberately messed up the paperwork to make it harder to understand.


Where did I say NASA was military?
Find it quick before I out you as a disinfo agent liar.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
FoosM
1. NASA has messy paperwork.
2. NASA is military, and should have consistent paperwork.
3. NASA may have deliberately messed up the paperwork to make it harder to understand.


Where did I say NASA was military?
Find it quick before I out you as a disinfo agent liar.



I certainly never made the case that NASA was military either. My position was always that they are a part of the military-industrial complex and in this capacity have participated in military and espionage and clandestine and national security operations. It's in the historical record with the secret shuttle missions. And the connections are going back all the way to 1961......

Some people just don't want to accept this version of history. They are totally absorbed by TV and propaganda.

edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edeets



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063Here, I'll make a list;

FoosM
1. NASA has messy paperwork.
2. NASA is military, and should have consistent paperwork.
3. NASA may have deliberately messed up the paperwork to make it harder to understand.

000063
1. NASA is a civilian agency.

SJ
1. NASA is an agent of the military-industrial complex.

000063
1. That's not what FoosM--

SJ
1. NASA is an agent of the military-industrial complex, and here are some sources to prove it.

000063
1. That source specifically describes NASA as civilian.

SJ
1. NASA is an agent of the military-industrial complex.

And here we are.


Yes. Here we are. Examining historical reality. We are not revising it. We are examining it.
And we have the right to do that.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063
The video you say is long on BS. Or any of the other three I linked to.


It was, it didn't really address any issues..

The idea was it would have been cheaper and easier to bribe or kill those at the observatory was their main argument..
It would be, wouldn't it? You're already defrauding the public to the tune of billions. What's a few more bribes and a murder or two?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063
The video you say is long on BS. Or any of the other three I linked to.


It was, it didn't really address any issues..

The idea was it would have been cheaper and easier to bribe or kill those at the observatory was their main argument..
It would be, wouldn't it? You're already defrauding the public to the tune of billions. What's a few more bribes and a murder or two?


Did that post have a point?
I don't see it..



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063NASA isn't a military agency. They're civvies, part of the Executive Branch.

I reckon that CIA and DoD are also a part of the Executive Branch.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
DoD is Federal, covering the US Armed Forces and National Security, and CIA is civilian. While they do take orders from the Commander-In-Chief on occasion, they are not part of the Executive Branch. This you could've learned yourself with a few seconds of Googling. Keep digging, SJ.

Your claim that NASA are "civvies" is "civilian spin" on the American space program.
edit on 4/30/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)
Ah yes, ye olde CT tactic of taking the few words that support your point and repeating them frantically like they're some sort of smoking gun while ignoring all alternative explanations or evidence to the contrary, even in the page you quoted from, which repeatedly describes NASA is a civilian agency. Have you considered that the "civilian spin" might not be referring to any sort of propagandist technique, but refers to simply turning them into a civilian agency?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Who does NASA answer to?

The President of the United States by way of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.

wiki.answers.com...

That says it all.
Given that there's no military involvement in that Chain of Command, I'd say you just proved they're not a military agency. Unless you're arguing that reporting to the President=military, in which case so is AMTRAK.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 420CUMMINS
yup :-)


How do you have 79 posts if you registered on Registered: April 30, 2011..

79 posts in less than 24 hours? Are you producing any content or are you merely creating NOISE???

420CUMMINS you have some explaining to do.
edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: majore edit


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Apollo is the joke.
edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: severe edit


Just pointing out the irony, don't mind me.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
FoosM
1. NASA has messy paperwork.
2. NASA is military, and should have consistent paperwork.
3. NASA may have deliberately messed up the paperwork to make it harder to understand.


Where did I say NASA was military?
Find it quick before I out you as a disinfo agent liar.



Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nataylor


www.nathantaylor.net...
www.nathantaylor.net...
www.nathantaylor.net...
www.nathantaylor.net...
www.nathantaylor.net...
www.nathantaylor.net...



You know what I find strange by all this.
Lack of uniformity.
In how samples where stored, brought back and catalogued.
I mean take a look at all the chart breakdowns, they are all written-up differently.
That makes no sense. One thing I know about the government, especially in the military, they like
uniformity.


This all looks like its made to purposely confuse people.

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: redacted

edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: word missing
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My inference was, not unreasonably, that you were calling NASA a military agency. If you were not, I apologize for misunderstanding you, though it doesn't change my assertion that they could've simply screwed up the paperwork, or my speculation that inconsistent paperwork would actually make it harder to keep their stories straight. It's not like it really matters either way, since said documents are going to be scrutinized for the rest of history. You could easily cross-check results with a notepad and a pencil.

Say, why did you respond to this post, but not this one (which immediately followed it), until now?


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I certainly never made the case that NASA was military either. My position was always that they are a part of the military-industrial complex and in this capacity have participated in military and espionage and clandestine and national security operations. It's in the historical record with the secret shuttle missions. And the connections are going back all the way to 1961......

Some people just don't want to accept this version of history. They are totally absorbed by TV and propaganda.

edit on 5/1/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: edeets
Sure they did. Which has nothing to do with whether the military took part in the purported conspiracy. It's a red herring and a smokescreen.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063
The video you say is long on BS. Or any of the other three I linked to.


It was, it didn't really address any issues..

The idea was it would have been cheaper and easier to bribe or kill those at the observatory was their main argument..
It would be, wouldn't it? You're already defrauding the public to the tune of billions. What's a few more bribes and a murder or two?


Did that post have a point?
I don't see it..
Are you arguing that it wouldn't be cheaper and easier just to bribe/kill the observatory dudes? I assume that's what the rolleyes meant.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Are you arguing that it wouldn't be cheaper and easier just to bribe/kill the observatory dudes? I assume that's what the rolleyes meant.


LMAO, yep, that was the sum total of debunking in that video..

Glad you agree and hence why I called it BS...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Are you arguing that it wouldn't be cheaper and easier just to bribe/kill the observatory dudes? I assume that's what the rolleyes meant.


LMAO, yep, that was the sum total of debunking in that video..

Glad you agree and hence why I called it BS...
Well, there was also the pointing out of the incorrect premises Jarrah used, such as claiming the Soviets couldn't track the moon landings themselves. Which they could've. Several countries did, in fact, track the missions. Not only would NASA have to fool the Soviets, they'd have to bribe or "convince" several other countries too.

In fact, there was even concern about their satellite, Luna 15, interfering with Apollo 11 in some way. I found this video, but I don't know if it's real or faked.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Are you arguing that it wouldn't be cheaper and easier just to bribe/kill the observatory dudes? I assume that's what the rolleyes meant.


LMAO, yep, that was the sum total of debunking in that video..

Glad you agree and hence why I called it BS...
Well, there was also the pointing out of the incorrect premises Jarrah used, such as claiming the Soviets couldn't track the moon landings themselves. Which they could've. Several countries did, in fact, track the missions. Not only would NASA have to fool the Soviets, they'd have to bribe or "convince" several other countries too.



Nobody, and no country could track Apollo from launch to lunar landing and back non stop. Most countries could only track to LEO. Or claim to pick up signals from the moon. But thats it. If you have any evidence of anybody, not affiliated with NASA, being able to track Apollo non-stop, please go ahead and provide evidence.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 



Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.


As usual, we been through all this before:


Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Page 130.


How do you find these posts so quick?
Have you indexed this thread???
It's called "paying attention", something you seem to consistently fail to do.



So 000063 are you DJW001 who is actually Phil Plait?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

In mine and others opinion he raises some very intriguing points about anomalies with NASA's stance on the lunar missions and while not being a genius by any means he presents his beliefs in a solid fashion and admits to his mistakes and addresses his critics.

If you watch is latest rebutall he mentions some of the very SICK and VULGAR stuff he has been forced to protest about.


yeah like these pointless attacks

Creepy Phil Plait Moon Hoax Stalker at TAM8




Creepy teen kid in his dad's suit spent a day at TAM trying to stalk Adam Savage and Phil Plait. You can see him pacing around like a frustrated kid who didn't get the hand job he expected at the end of a mercy date with a barrista. He is, in fact, pacing around frustrated because his "gotcha" question to Adam Savage was dispensed with and he wasn't allowed to ask a second question.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Shake & Bake



Ok Apollo defenders,
While we are waiting for the radiation debunk.
Try your hand at the following:

The following clip examines the lift off of Apollo Saturn rockets and Freedom 7.
The claim: Astronaut testimony of the lift off, is contrary to the actual footage and audio of Saturn launches.
The claim: Astronaut testimony of the lift off, as well as Freedom 7 footage, is contrary to the shuttle mission's lift offs.

NASA's Face Lift-Off Part I (Rocketing 2 Realism)

if you are overseas:
current.com...



Part 2 of a two part video series exploring the voices of NASA's pilots during launches. From Freedom 7 to Apollo 17, the voices of NASA's Milli Vanilli astronots give their fraudulent missions away from the start. Listen to guys with the wrong stuff, try and convince you how loud, and violently shaky the launches were, while thier voices during the launch tell a completely different tale.



Can somebody please explain the discrepancies.
I mean, seriously, how could Freedom 7 be such a quiet launch compared to the shuttle?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Are you arguing that it wouldn't be cheaper and easier just to bribe/kill the observatory dudes? I assume that's what the rolleyes meant.


LMAO, yep, that was the sum total of debunking in that video..

Glad you agree and hence why I called it BS...
Well, there was also the pointing out of the incorrect premises Jarrah used, such as claiming the Soviets couldn't track the moon landings themselves. Which they could've. Several countries did, in fact, track the missions. Not only would NASA have to fool the Soviets, they'd have to bribe or "convince" several other countries too.



Nobody, and no country could track Apollo from launch to lunar landing and back non stop. Most countries could only track to LEO. Or claim to pick up signals from the moon. But thats it. If you have any evidence of anybody, not affiliated with NASA, being able to track Apollo non-stop, please go ahead and provide evidence.

I very, very specifically, did not say "from beginning to end". Nice try.

Now before you go "aha! that proves-", I would like to point out that if someone sees me turn onto a street, and someone else sees me turn off a mile later, they have to take my word that I drove a mile straight down that street, unless there's evidence I took a detour. Evidence such as my odometer saying the trip took more than one mile, for instance.

Now, about my post of videos rebutting Jarrah.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 435  436  437    439  440  441 >>

log in

join