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: 480
377
<< 477  478  479    481  482  483 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No doubt I missed the answer... but can someone tell me why Neil Armstrong says this to Patrick moore when asked if he could see stars...
...
Complete opposites. Why could that be?
Because he was asked if he could "see stars in the solar corona, in spite of the glare", from the surface, which would make it difficult to see the stars. The second quote was made about him being in space, on the way to the moon.


We had to coordinate our times with Houston, since there was really no telling day from night in space. The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars. One thing was certain: with each passing hour, the Earth was growing smaller and the moon was getting larger when we looked out our windows.


Nice quote-mining.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Hi all,
Check out this interview with Jarrah White, the world's leading expert on the Moon Hoax Theory. It's 2 hours long but you can see how Jarrah has mastered the debate. He knows thousands of arguments both for and against the Moon Hoax Theory and seems to have memorized them all to the point where he can easily pull out the cards the refute any opposing arguments.
Oh good. Perhaps he can explain why he said the astronauts in 11 would receive the unshielded exposure. Perhaps you can. Perhaps certain parties can, if they would stop pretending the post didn't exist.


Originally posted by FoosM


Originally posted by 000063
Incidentally, they abandoned a pure O2 atmo after Apollo 1. You seem to have misinterpreted whatever website you got that fact from from.

Oh really? Show me the evidence. And I dont know if you want to use a conspiracy site for it.
I just did. Now produce your source. Who said they were still using pure O2 after Apollo 11?


Scrambled to the potty every time?
Scramble from where?
Is this what you're reduced to? Really? Scrambled from wherever they were when they needed to use the bathroom, is where.


And sitting in your own poopy-pants is a health hazard.
Over extended periods of time, yes. While uncomfortable, it's entirely possible to make it a few hours.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



film n 1: a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement;



ENTERTAINMENT, n. Any kind of amusement whose inroads stop short of death by injection.

Your source.


n 1: an account describing incidents or events; "a farfetched
narrative"; "after dinner he told the children stories
of his adventures" [syn: narration, narrative, tale,
recital, yarn]
2: a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events;
"he writes stories for the magazines"

Your source.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Quote-mining. I don't think so. That's why I posted the clip. So you could all watch and listen. Therefore it wasn't necessary to repeat Patrick Moore's question because Neil answered so emphatically..
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface..."

He's not saying, 'we weren't able to see stars if we looked at the sun' or 'we weren't able to see stars if we had our gold visors up' etc etc.

He said in his total answer to the question: 'We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or from the daylinght side of the moon... (pause) er.. but I.. without looking through the optics.. er .. I don't recall, during the time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.'

Kind of an odd, confused answer don't you think? In effect by saying 'i don't recall... what stars we could see' goes against his emphatic 'we were never able to see stars..'

So in one sentence he is contradicting himself.

Given the nature of the question and of the press conference a better answer might have been... 'I don't recall what stars we could see when photographing the solar corona."

Any why do all three returning heroes look so goddam miserable at this conference? I've asked this question three times now to various Apollo OS believers and no-one has offered an opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I'm confused by your ramblings.

Are you saying Pirates of the Carribean 4 isn't a film because it was shot on video? What was your original point of disputing if young Jarrah is making films or videos?

You started it... you seem to think a film is something that is shot on celluloid film.

I have told you that is not the case.

Do you really want to press the point and look even more stupid? Please answer the first question. ta.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



With the way you and others respond to anyone that questions your God NASA, who can blame him??

Why would he come here and get insulted just for questioning??
That's what you guys do..


Really? I put more effort into this one post than you have exerted on this entire thread. I posed a question 200 pages ago and you have yet to deal with it. All you do is use your supposed "objectivity" to launch personal attacks against people who decry Jarrah's willful twisting of the truth. Let's put it out there: in all objectivity, is there any way that Jarrah can have read and understood Kovalev's paper, and then made his claim that Kovalev's data contradicts NASA's without knowingly lying? And if it was an honest mistake, why has he never withdrawn the video, or issued a correction?

Jarrah White refuses to come here under his own name because he has been humiliated every time he engages in open debate.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



You started it... you seem to think a film is something that is shot on celluloid film.
I have told you that is not the case.


Jarrah White is, at best, a videographer:


Videography refers to the process of capturing moving images on electronic media (e.g., videotape, hard disk, or solid state storage, streaming media). The term includes methods of electronic production and post production. It is the equivalent of cinematography, but with images recorded on electronic media instead of film stock.

Wikipedia

As a film-maker, I'm sure you understand the vast difference between organizing a large production and sitting on your butt in front of a computer editing other peoples' work. Jarrah's description of himself as a film-maker is self important and pompous. To quote your source again:


3: broadcasting visual images of stationary or moving objects;
"Television is a medium because it is neither rare nor
well done" - Ernie Kovacs



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


To suggest that anyone who makes and produces their own films IS NOT a film-maker is ludicrous. I know lots of film-makers who make amazing films on their own with no outside help. And yes, they shoot on video.

Have you heard of documentary films? Often made by a solo film-maker. If not i can post links to dozens and dozens of examples but i think its rather off topic.

Face it DJ... you made a simple error. It's not the end of world... we all make mistakes... even young Jarrah. The big difference being he will admit to making a mistake.

Now will you?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No doubt I missed the answer... but can someone tell me why Neil Armstrong says this to Patrick moore when asked if he could see stars...
...
Complete opposites. Why could that be?
Because he was asked if he could "see stars in the solar corona, in spite of the glare", from the surface, which would make it difficult to see the stars.


Anybody can tell that was a leading question posed by Patrick Moore.

a leading question is a question that suggests the answer or contains the information the examiner is looking for.

en.wikipedia.org...




The second quote was made about him being in space, on the way to the moon.



Its already been established in this thread that Cernan claimed to have seen stars from the surface of the moon.

Astronots = busted.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




I put more effort into this one post than you have exerted on this entire thread.


Blatant lie. Backinblack doesn't have to answer your questions to demonstrate that they contribute to this thread.
Your post took all of 3 minutes to write. The entirety of Backinblack's posts would have taken far longer to compose so I accuse you sir of lying, blatantly, distorting the truth in the vain hope of pressing your non-point forward.

Just one more reason to question your motives in attacking Jarrah is such an uncharitable fashion and never giving him any credit, if only for making very polished, proffessional videos. You can disagree with the substance of his videos but it would be charitable to acknowledge he puts a lot of time and effort into making them.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Any why do all three returning heroes look so goddam miserable at this conference? I've asked this question three times now to various Apollo OS believers and no-one has offered an opinion.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I get bored of answering the same ridiculous question over and over again... oh wait! You don't want an answer! It's completely rhetorical, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



You started it... you seem to think a film is something that is shot on celluloid film.
I have told you that is not the case.


Jarrah White is, at best, a videographer:


Videography refers to the process of capturing moving images on electronic media (e.g., videotape, hard disk, or solid state storage, streaming media). The term includes methods of electronic production and post production. It is the equivalent of cinematography, but with images recorded on electronic media instead of film stock.

Wikipedia


DJ, its the same difference.
A Videographer or Cinematographer can be used to make films.
They are just using different mediums.

Jarrah is also a director, editor, producer as he determines the direction where his films go.
That makes him a filmmaker.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM


Originally posted by 000063
Incidentally, they abandoned a pure O2 atmo after Apollo 1. You seem to have misinterpreted whatever website you got that fact from from.

Oh really? Show me the evidence. And I dont know if you want to use a conspiracy site for it.
I just did. Now produce your source. Who said they were still using pure O2 after Apollo 11?


I know you did, and I said I dont know if you want to use that source you did because it states:

for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.







Scrambled to the potty every time?
Scramble from where?
Is this what you're reduced to? Really? Scrambled from wherever they were when they needed to use the bathroom, is where.


And sitting in your own poopy-pants is a health hazard.
Over extended periods of time, yes. While uncomfortable, it's entirely possible to make it a few hours.



Are you basing this on experience?
And do you call 12 hours a few hours?
And how did they manage to stand the smell?
It would have been overwhelming.
There was no shower in the CM (no gravity) or LM,
so how did they manage to clean the suits and themselves with a wet nap and still hold a conversation with Houston? Come on, you are reaching.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental



We were never able to see stars from the Lunar surface.


Yet Buzz Aldrin writes this in his book:"Magnificent Desolation" (chapter 1, page 8, hardback version)



The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars.


Complete opposites. Why could that be?


On page 8 of his book, he's talking about being in command module. The answer to the question was about being on the lunar surface. Two different locations.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
why he said the astronauts in 11 would receive the unshielded exposure.[/url] Perhaps you can. Perhaps certain parties can, if they would stop pretending the post didn't exist.


Because to survive going through the VABs, Interstellar space, landing on the moon you need to be sufficiently shielded. Like with a few feet of lead. 1 to 8cm^3 of aluminum is not shielding for space radiation.

Its like saying, your coat can shield you from cold weather but not the meltdown of Fukushima.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


H nataylor,
Yes this was pointed out right after my post. I was unaware of that.
Another poster has added that other astronauts, specifically Cernan, has spoken about seeing stars from the Lunar surface. If I could find his quote I would post it.

So the question is can astronauts see stars from the Lunar surface? Or just some astronauts.

And while you're here, any suggestions as to why the first men on the moon (supposedly) look so darn depressed in their historic press conference?
edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: spellink



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 






Either you didn't click on the link or you're the world's worst liar. This is the post I was referring to:




www.abovetopsecret.com...

No need to apologize. This thread should have been closed five months ago.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



Any why do all three returning heroes look so goddam miserable at this conference? I've asked this question three times now to various Apollo OS believers and no-one has offered an opinion.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I get bored of answering the same ridiculous question over and over again... oh wait! You don't want an answer! It's completely rhetorical, isn't it?


I am sorry. I didn't see your previous answers. Thank you for making the effort. I find your reasoning very difficult to comprehend. They are no longer in a metal box or being bombarded by meteorites (that was a major problem wasn't it?). They are on Earth... safe... re-united with wives and families...

Surely what better moment to rejoice in triumpgh and success!

There... see. A sorry. Not too hard.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hiding your links in your prose doesn't make that easy to work out... i didn't even notice the hyperlink. So in future you should make yourself 100% clear.

But at least you got to post your rambling post again. Well done.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I am sorry. I didn't see your previous answers. Thank you for making the effort. I find your reasoning very difficult to comprehend. They are no longer in a metal box or being bombarded by meteorites (that was a major problem wasn't it?). They are on Earth... safe... re-united with wives and families...


Yes, that's why returning veterans have such a reputation for being jolly.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 477  478  479    481  482  483 >>

log in

join