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: 455
377
<< 452  453  454    456  457  458 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063


It's also rather hypocritical of Jarrah to complain about YT's policy when he's known for filing DMCAs against the people who criticize him.


Thats a lie right there.
JW files against people who are not criticizing, but making fun of him.
He has no problem with people like STBAYS, GoneToPLAID who debate his findings.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

edit on 16-5-2011 by FoosM because: dbl post



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063


It's also rather hypocritical of Jarrah to complain about YT's policy when he's known for filing DMCAs against the people who criticize him.


Thats a lie right there.
JW files against people who are not criticizing, but making fun of him.
He has no problem with people like STBAYS, GoneToPLAID who debate his findings.
Yes, and? People are allowed to mock other people on YouTube.

[link]

edit on 2011/5/16 by 000063 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011/5/16 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Like Clock Work... Orange

[words]


Wait a minute...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gosh, FoosM, if I didn't know better, I'd say you waited until some other people posted and hoped everyone forgot my post. That certainly wouldn't be an argumentative tactic you've tried before or anything.

So! Why is it so important to you that Jarrah was right about this one point? It's not like it's the only one he makes, and not that critical to his argument as a whole. Why have you argued tooth and nail that he was right about this one point when he was flat wrong?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?


Are you honestly claiming that you do not believe that the fundamental laws of motion do not apply on the Moon? That bodies with mass have no inertia or momentum there?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


I am curious about something. The biggest event in history at that time, 1969 moon launch, why didn't President Nixon attend?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Have you ever watched the "Moon Landing A Fake" videos on Youtube? The people in this video series are Nixon's own top people discussing the moon landing. They actually state that Nixon suggested a fake performance in the event of a failure of the mission for any reason.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-5-2011 by aero56 because: typo, add link



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Hiya,
Before you get charachter assasinated by the Apollo OS believers let me say in a more friendly manner that the youtube clip you refer to is a scene from a mockumentary called DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

Weed's post on page 451 of this thread covers this in his usual style... so ignore his bitchiness and he does state some facts.
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg451




This mockumentary film by William Karel has interviews with Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are actors making strange assertions and then short clips of these famous men commenting out of context. The film tells the tale of how Stanley Kubrik was involved in a vast government conspiracy regarding the moon landings. It is quite entertaining. thepiratebay.org...(William_Karel_mockumentary)


Unlike the Apollo landings the facts about this mockumentary come from a variety of independant sources and can be verified.

I didn't know Nixon wasn't at the rocket take off... why not I wonder?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by WWu777
 


I am curious about something. The biggest event in history at that time, 1969 moon launch, why didn't President Nixon attend?
He was with Doctor Who at the time.

Also, Jimmy Carter didn't attend the Columbia launch. That sure is suspicious.

Originally posted by manmental
Unlike the Apollo landings the facts about this mockumentary come from a variety of independant sources and can be verified.

I didn't know Nixon wasn't at the rocket take off... why not I wonder?
I love how you're toeing FoosM's party line. It was a joke documentary. Not credible. Move on to the sources it used.

And there are plenty of independent sources confirming the moon landing, including the USSR. If they saw it was fake, why not expose them? Why did their space program lose heart after Apollo 11?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
It comes from the Orange Soil scene.
This video:



What I like you all to to focus on is 0:17 to 0:18 where the actor has turned and hopped.
Take a look at the PLSS
The top portion of the PLSS



What did you just see happen?
Did it appear to you, like it did to me, that the PLSS was darkened by a shadow?
Of course, if you look at the whole scene we have to ask ourselves, the shadow of what?
What made a portion of the PLSS disappear?



I submit to you this as evidence for tell tale signs of special effects!



It's a tell tale sign of debris on the lens.

Take a look at the end of the part 1 video:



At 3:20 we can clearly see this bit of debris on the lens:



This is in the exact same spot you point out on the PLSS, which happens about 25 seconds after the shot above:


edit on 16-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?


Are you honestly claiming that you do not believe that the fundamental laws of motion do not apply on the Moon? That bodies with mass have no inertia or momentum there?


I asked about that 20 pages ago..

The astronauts seem to have no issues running, stopping and turning even with all that extra momentum they carry..
A bit strange IMO..



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?


Are you honestly claiming that you do not believe that the fundamental laws of motion do not apply on the Moon? That bodies with mass have no inertia or momentum there?


I asked about that 20 pages ago..

The astronauts seem to have no issues running, stopping and turning even with all that extra momentum they carry..
A bit strange IMO..
I'm fairly someone here knows the calculations regarding momentum and velocity in reduced gravity. However, if you mean things like

video.google.com...#

then I could walk faster than that.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?


Are you honestly claiming that you do not believe that the fundamental laws of motion do not apply on the Moon? That bodies with mass have no inertia or momentum there?


I asked about that 20 pages ago..

The astronauts seem to have no issues running, stopping and turning even with all that extra momentum they carry..
A bit strange IMO..


There is a pre-condition that must be applied when analyzing all Apollo videos: where is the source file? For the purpose of illustration only do we use screencaps and youtube references. We should be looking at only the highest quality versions available which is HD content produced NASA. Then there is to be considered all of the historical material produced by the network media outlets. Archived material is source material, too. We should always consider not to waste our time with frame rate illusions or inertial variances or resolution or lens focus issues. A youtube video is not worthy of this type of analysis. It is a complete waste of time. IMO.

There are breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. However the key to cracking the Apollo Code is in the source material... who has it and what did they do with it? Lastly the Apollo investigator has to maintain full awareness of the provenance of the source material they are getting. This is especially critical in video.

Now considering all of this I have a specific question for DJW. Did you actually get a copy of the Kovalev report? The exact same one that Jarrah White cited from?
edit on 5/16/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There is a pre-condition that must be applied when analyzing all Apollo videos: where is the source file? For the purpose of illustration only do we use screencaps and youtube references. We should be looking at only the highest quality versions available which is HD content produced NASA.


I assume you are talking about the Slow Scan TV tapes. These needed to be converted into the then network standards (PAL, NTSC) in order to be viewed on an ordinary television. If you don't have an SSTV player, you are out of luck. HD simply didn't exist in the 1970's.


Now considering all of this I have a specific question for DJW. Did you actually get a copy of the Kovalev report? The exact same one that Jarrah White cited from?


Puncturing Jarrah isn't worth twenty bucks to me, but AgentSmith did download a copy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If defending Jarrah is worth twenty bucks to you, perhaps you could download a copy and prove that Jarrah didn't lie. Incidentally, let me head off your objection: even if AgentSmith did not post the actual document, the citations in the secondary source were explicit enough to render the conclusion inescapable.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Face it....in this post, and its partner, you are just embarrassing yourself.

Lucky for you, the anonymity of the Internetz protects you, personally from the shame.

Not ONE aspect of all that "work" you put in to either post is accurate....just more of the same ole', same ole' nonsense. You are very close to utilizing bottom-of-barrel tactics, in this desperate and failing attempt to "show" something, ANYthing *wrong* with Apollo.

Of course....the fact that literally Millions of other, intelligent, and experienced people have seen all this same information, and NONE of them see anything *wrong* is lost on you, and your (tiny) fan base...as well as Jarrah White's (tiny) base.


YOU, by the way, have never (that I can recall) answered the actual PROOF of Apollo. The photos. From orbit.

It is irrefutable, sorry for the delusion you hold. *Faith* that is based on ignorance and lack of logic and reasoning (all of it is, I suppose) is painful to have revealed as WRONG after one holds on to it for so long.

Go out, and actually LEARN some science, then come back and have another look. Go learn to fly, or something too. Once you understand the process, the reality, how things work in the REAL world, it will be clearer.

Also, I would suggest you (like me) take the time to study the craft of film making. Rent DVDs with the "Behind The Scenes" extras, to see the process involved in film production. Learn about cinematography, editing, lighting, gaffers, best boys, grips....all those insider terms, for the movie biz.... (and TV). To see just HOW the Apollo footage could NOT have been done, "studio-style"..

You have a long road ahead.....I think, based on what mis-perceptions you continue to labor under, it will be very enlightening........





edit on Mon 16 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   



Originally posted by nataylor

I submit to you this as evidence for tell tale signs of special effects!



It's a tell tale sign of debris on the lens.

Take a look at the end of the part 1 video:



At 3:20 we can clearly see this bit of debris on the lens:



This is in the exact same spot you point out on the PLSS, which happens about 25 seconds after the shot above:


edit on 16-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



I will have to disagree with you there NAT. Debris would be a possible explanation, but in this case, like with the cross hairs, the bright white of the suits overwhelm the debris on the lens! Watch the video again, and you will see whenever anything bright and white goes in front of the debris, the debris disappears.


edit on 16-5-2011 by FoosM because: formatting



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by aero56
 


Hiya,
Before you get charachter assasinated by the Apollo OS believers let me say in a more friendly manner that the youtube clip you refer to is a scene from a mockumentary called DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

Weed's post on page 451 of this thread covers this in his usual style... so ignore his bitchiness and he does state some facts.
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg451




This mockumentary film by William Karel has interviews with Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are actors making strange assertions and then short clips of these famous men commenting out of context. The film tells the tale of how Stanley Kubrik was involved in a vast government conspiracy regarding the moon landings. It is quite entertaining. thepiratebay.org...(William_Karel_mockumentary)


Unlike the Apollo landings the facts about this mockumentary come from a variety of independant sources and can be verified.

I didn't know Nixon wasn't at the rocket take off... why not I wonder?


Unfortunately I will have to disagree with you on this one.
That documentary does not fall under "mockumentary"
Thats a false label.

Mockumentaries consists of fake stories and fake people being filmed as they are participating in a documentary. An example would be "The Office"

Again, there is nothing in this documentary that you can say was a lie.
There is a moon conspiracy, those people are real, and Kubrick is a director.

In essence what exactly was Darkside of the Moon mocking?
Nothing.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh yeah? If thats the case why did Mythbusters make such a big issue about it with their flag episode?


Are you honestly claiming that you do not believe that the fundamental laws of motion do not apply on the Moon? That bodies with mass have no inertia or momentum there?



I will ask you again, what was the point of Mythbusters study on flag motion?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


In essence what exactly was Darkside of the Moon mocking?

It was mocking people like you.

The credit reel:



edit on 5/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I will have to disagree with you there NAT. Debris would be a possible explanation, but in this case, like with the cross hairs, the bright white of the suits overwhelm the debris on the lens! Watch the video again, and you will see whenever anything bright and white goes in front of the debris, the debris disappears.


The debris seems to disappear when it's over something that is completely blown out. But if the background isn't completely blown out, like on the very edge of the PLSS, you can still see it, like this:


edit on 16-5-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 452  453  454    456  457  458 >>

log in

join