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: 489
377
<< 486  487  488    490  491  492 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



You have yet to explain how a seated astronaut with a PLSS could turn around to stow away an item.


And you have yet to explain why they couldn't.


Fail!




On the Apollo rover, the astronauts couldn’t go in reverse because they couldn’t see where they were going. They couldn’t turn around or look over their shoulders like you would in a car. But with the lunar truck, the astronaut can turn completely around on the vehicle – backwards is the new forwards.


Did you really need me to provide such obvious information DJ? Please, anybody can see you cant turn around in the rover! DJ simply cant, or refuses to put one and one together to figure out the obvious problem staring him right in the face. He is blind to any criticism towards the Apollo missions. Everything makes sense to him no matter how outlandish. The Apollo fantasy must live on in his mind as a fact.


www.universetoday.com...




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Did you really need me to provide such obvious information DJ? Please, anybody can see you cant turn around in the rover! DJ simply cant, or refuses to put one and one together to figure out the obvious problem staring him right in the face. He is blind to any criticism towards the Apollo missions. Everything makes sense to him no matter how outlandish. The Apollo fantasy must live on in his mind as a fact.


You're quoting a secondary source. He didn't need to turn around completely, just enough to chuck the tool behind him. In any event, that still doesn't rule out his placing it to one side... or simply dropping it. Now: why do you think this sequence was done with miniatures? Why was it storyboarded in such a bizarre fashion? Why did they not edit it out if it was a mistake? Why do these obvious flaws in your theory not seem to cause you to question your own assertions? Everything makes sense to you no matter how outlandish. The Hoax fantasy must live on in your mind as a fact.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Did you really need me to provide such obvious information DJ? Please, anybody can see you cant turn around in the rover! DJ simply cant, or refuses to put one and one together to figure out the obvious problem staring him right in the face. He is blind to any criticism towards the Apollo missions. Everything makes sense to him no matter how outlandish. The Apollo fantasy must live on in his mind as a fact.


You're quoting a secondary source.




I knew that was coming!
But sorry to say DJ, this source has more validity than you do regarding this issue.
And Im sure this source got this info straight from NASA. But like I said before, its common sense.
Admit it, your just muddying the discussion with angels-dancing-on-a-head-of-a-needle distractions.

Case in point:



He didn't need to turn around completely, just enough to chuck the tool behind him.


Chuck the tool behind him?

Why would he do that? To what end? And to where? How is that a safe procedure to conduct during an EVA? And you have yet to solve the fact that they used the same tool later in the EVA. So there is no evidence of chucking of anything!





In any event, that still doesn't rule out his placing it to one side... or simply dropping it.

Yes it does, the whole reason you want to imagine this astronaut chucking tools is because we cant see this tool anywhere else in the photo. Not next to him, not on the ground. And again, why throw something away you will use later?





Now: why do you think this sequence was done with miniatures? Why was it storyboarded in such a bizarre fashion? Why did they not edit it out if it was a mistake?


How do you edit out photos? Anyway, if you want to refer to movies, why do filmmakers leave their mistakes in movies? Its a sequence of photos that when put together is flawed. Its an overlooked problem that nobody on either side of the debate saw till I brought it up on this thread.



Why do these obvious flaws in your theory not seem to cause you to question your own assertions? Everything makes sense to you no matter how outlandish. The Hoax fantasy must live on in your mind as a fact.


What flaw in my theory? Show me the flaw in my theory.
What is your answer, men landed on the moon and captured impossible actions on 70mm photos? That makes more sense to you?


edit on 6-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What is your answer, men landed on the moon and captured impossible actions on 70mm photos?


Since we haven't established exactly what's going on in this series of photos, how do you know it's impossible? The A-17 astronauts were notoriously space happy:



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


it is entirely possible to place an object behind you without turning around



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


it is entirely possible (for an astronaut) to place an object behind (him) without turning around



fixed.
Now does that make any sense?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   


 


ATS Terms and Conditions of Use

1k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on ATS or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

So remember:

* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion

edit on June 6th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


it makes perfect sense - the astronauts could operate valves on the bottom of the PLSS



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


it makes perfect sense - the astronauts could operate valves on the bottom of the PLSS


So thats where the sampler went right?
Up the bottom of the PLSS...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


why are you intentionally dishonest ? if you can operate the PLSS valves you can put other objects behind you - its really quite simple



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


why are you intentionally dishonest ? if you can operate the PLSS valves you can put other objects behind you - its really quite simple


Sorry but bottom =/= behind.

But if you want to make the statement that a sitting astronaut, with a PLSS, could place a long tool behind him without turning around. Please go right ahead. Make that statement here for all to see.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But if you want to make the statement that a sitting astronaut, with a PLSS, could place a long tool behind him without turning around. Please go right ahead. Make that statement here for all to see.


As usual, you have made my point for me. What happens is this video was accidental and uncontrolled. He could easily have raised it beside his head and let it slide down behind his back. Thanks!



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ironically, Raoul nearly answered his own question, but didn't quite think it through the whole way. Yes, computers are much more advanced today than they were 40 years ago. They can send back more data per pound of payload because they do not require life support systems. The next generation will have AI capacities and will be able to navigate on the lunar and martian surfaces without needing to await commands from Earth. We endanger mens' lives and waste money when robots can do the job just as well and, soon, better.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
He could easily have raised it beside his head and let it slide down behind his back. Thanks!


Oh come on stop playing around.
Lets get serious here.
I dont think you believe what you just wrote.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Oh come on stop playing around. Lets get serious here. I dont think you believe what you just wrote.


Do you believe everything you have ever posted? Shall we walk down Memory Lane?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Do you believe everything you have ever posted? Shall we walk down Memory Lane?


Oh so you admit that you dont believe what you wrote.
Classic.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


it is entirely possible (for an astronaut) to place an object behind (him) without turning around



fixed.
Now does that make any sense?
Can you let just one statement stand without strawmanning it and JAQing off? Just one. I think it would be a refreshing and novel experience for you.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


Not sure how that's a "fail." We were talking Apollo 8's use of 2485 film (which was to be used in orbit, obviously, as Apollo 8 never landed on the surface). You asked why that film wasn't used on other missions, I pointed out it was. I really don't get what photos taken from the surface have to do with anything.
Protip: Someone's moving the goalposts. I'll leave you to guess who.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
He could easily have raised it beside his head and let it slide down behind his back. Thanks!


Oh come on stop playing around.
Lets get serious here.
I dont think you believe what you just wrote.
FoosM, you seem to be calling DJ a liar. Are you calling him a liar? If not, then what are you calling him?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
He could easily have raised it beside his head and let it slide down behind his back. Thanks!


Oh come on stop playing around.
Lets get serious here.
I dont think you believe what you just wrote.
FoosM, you seem to be calling DJ a liar. Are you calling him a liar? If not, then what are you calling him?


You seem awfully interested in non interesting things.
You just made three posts that could have been made into one.
And neither has anything to do with with proving the moon landing happened.
Or, debunking JW or any other evidence of fakery.

I think you are just trying to fill this page with junk posts to move the thread away from
new readers that may discover NASA lies like this great photo mystery:



or




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 486  487  488    490  491  492 >>

log in

join