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: 491
377
<< 488  489  490    492  493  494 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Really??
Demolished is such a strong word..


Yet apparently you do not consider this be hyperbole:


Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?


Your impartiality is underwhelming.

In fact, the basis of his argument has been demolished because it has been shown to be a variation of the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy. He does not understand the sequence of events that these photos portray, therefore they are impossible and therefore must be "fake." Several perfectly reasonable interpretations have been provided, and although it's true that we do not know which of them is the actual explanation, that is unnecessary. If any of them could be true, FoosM's argument, which is invalid in the first place, is refuted.

Don't you have anything to say about these ridiculous statements from the same post?


The photographer was in different positions on the 3 pictures!
Yeah, explain that! Explain how that is possible in four seconds to capture a one second jump!
And there is no indication that he bounced. LOL.


What does the photographer's motion have to do with anything? You can cover a lot of ground in 4 seconds. Why does he repeat the "one second jump" claim? He never did substantiate it in the first round. As for the "bounce," his own photographic evidence contradicts him!




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal

Originally posted by FoosM

Here is what NASA said:
Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


It says that Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping ON his seat, not jumping into his seat!!


Ok, so you would like to interpret "Jack jumping in his seat" to "Jack jumping on his seat" ? So what you are saying is that Gene was taking pictures of Jack bouncing on his seat? Is that correct?

Let me provide you with NASA's own words.
And you simply will have to state if you agree or disagree with NASA's own statement.
Because Im not making this up. This is what NASA has said. So if you disagree with it, you do understand that you are disagreeing with NASA.

Photo 1.

AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.


Pay close attention to the word "mounting".
Can you inform us what you believe the word "mounting" means?

Lets go to Photo 2.

AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.



You see that sentence, "Jack jumping INTO the LMP Rover seat."

What did you say?



It says that Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping ON his seat, not jumping into his seat!!


What would you agree that it actually says for the second photo that Jack is jumping INTO his seat and not ON his seat?

Now let me ask you this. If Jack was jumping INTO his seat during the second photo.
What was he actually doing in the first photo? Was that the same action? In other words, part of the same jump? Or would you say that Jack jumped into his seat, got back off the rover, then jumped back into his seat again?



www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



Because if you refuse to answer, I'm just going to assume you agree with his post, and you think it was perfectly possible for the astronaut to just drop the object behind him.
All I'm asking is whether you think DJ was telling what he thought to be the truth, or a deliberate


What's this liar stuff??

I think you'll find DJ was merely giving an opinion, NOT an answer..
Who know's if DJ believes that's the true explanation?
Ask him, not Foosm..
FoosM said he didn't believe that DJ believed what he was saying. Twice. That sounds like FoosM was accusing DJ of being a liar. I asked him for clarification once, and he tried to change the subject. I asked him again, and he ignored it. All I want is for him to tell me, in a direct statement, if he was calling DJ a liar. FoosM has a pathological aversion to direct statements, haven't you noticed? Even the simplest ones. I wonder what's so hard about saying "I think you're lying"?


How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.

That is not calling somebody a liar because he would have to know the truth. Nobody here knows the real truth.
Unless one of us was part of the Apollo space program.
So what I was saying is that DJ has doubts or is being intellectually dishonest about the statement he made.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.


NOW you ARE calling me a liar. I made it perfectly clear when I was speculating, and, in fact, emphasized that we simply lacked enough information to reconstruct exactly what happened. This is called "integrity." I don't care which scenario is the correct one because your argument is based entirely on a logical fallacy in the first place. Your failure to admit that this is the case is pathetic, and now you find it necessary to resort to ad homs? A clear demonstration of the weakness of your position.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Pay close attention to the word "mounting".
Can you inform us what you believe the word "mounting" means?


Albert Einstein said that "repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome is the definition of madness." We've been through all this before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you really think it will end differently this time?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so you would like to interpret "Jack jumping in his seat" to "Jack jumping on his seat" ? So what you are saying is that Gene was taking pictures of Jack bouncing on his seat? Is that correct?


Yes that's what I'm saying!


Originally posted by FoosM
Let me provide you with NASA's own words.
And you simply will have to state if you agree or disagree with NASA's own statement.
Because Im not making this up. This is what NASA has said. So if you disagree with it, you do understand that you are disagreeing with NASA.

Photo 1.

AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.



Ok yes, they say that only that picture depicts jack mounting the LRV. Not the 3 pictures you showed. only that one is described as being Jack mounting the LRV. he obviously had to MOUNT it to be jumping ON it!!! and why do you bring that up now when you asked previously what was the orange artifact on the picture, well that same quote tells you what it is: Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.



AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.


Ok they said that but they also said this:


Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


Which one is correct??


Originally posted by FoosM
Now let me ask you this. If Jack was jumping INTO his seat during the second photo.
What was he actually doing in the first photo? Was that the same action? In other words, part of the same jump? Or would you say that Jack jumped into his seat, got back off the rover, then jumped back into his seat again?


No!! What I am saying is that the 1st jump into the Rover was captured by Cerne, and is the 1st picture of the sequence and then after he was already ON the rover he jumped IN it!! and then the 2 other pics were taken trying to catch the moment he was mid-air...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:11 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!


Then how do you explain this shot?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The sampler didn't disapeared it was placed at probably one of these locations:



164:10:28 EVA-3 at the LM. Portrait of Jack with the LRV in the foreground and the U.S. flag in the background. Note the checklist on his left wrist and the camera mounted on his chest-mounted Remote Control Unit (RCU). A packet of individual sample bags is hanging from his camera bracket. Note, also, the LRV sampler which Jack is either holding in his left hand or has attached to a waist-mounted "yo-yo" tether.




165:57:10 Station 6. Jack is on the downslope side of the Rover with his visor up. This photo gives us a good view of the rake and the seismic charge transporter behind Gene's seat and, behind Jack's seat, the SEP receiving antenna. In the gap behind the seats, the thermal cover for the top of the SEP receiver hangs down in the open position. Toward the front of the vehicle, note the handhold on the outside edge next to Gene's seat. Jack's LRV Sampler can be seen on the far side of the console and the maps can be seen just below the low-gain antenna. Gene's seatbelt is stowed on the near side of the console.



Jack's Station 1 pan. aimed higher than 20759. Gene is at the back of the Rover. This excellent picture shows the high-gain antenna, the TV camera, and the dustbrush at the front of the Rover. Just forward of the seats, we can see the low-gain antenna, the traverse maps clipped to the accessory staff, and, sticking out toward the front of the vehicle, Jack's LRV Sampler.

it can also be placed on the back of the LRV.
edit on 9-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.


NOW you ARE calling me a liar.




Your funny.
Tell me. What were you lying about and who where you lying to?


edit on 9-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:51 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!


Then how do you explain this shot?



Ok, who gave you a star for that?
And either you or that person who gave you a star please explain what this video has to do with anything.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
Don't you dare to presume what I do or do not believe.


That is not calling somebody a liar because he would have to know the truth.
Well, no.

dictionary.reference.com...

–noun
1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.an inaccurate or false statement.


You accused DJ of making a statement he didn't believe. That's 2, which is a lie.


Nobody here knows the real truth.
Unless one of us was part of the Apollo space program.
Which is odd, because your side has been assuming up and down that the Apollo astronauts have been lying through their teeth. You yourself have made several statements that have claimed, point blank, the landings were a hoax. Your sudden retreat to "we can't know the real truth!" is backpedalling. In fact, your debating technique, by and large, consists of Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. For a purported "skeptic", you frequently place your off-the-cuff opinions over those of actual experts who have studied the evidence. I mean, you think their dinner/breakfast the night before is a smoking gun, because it's not what you would eat. I don't think you're a dietician.

Link

Ready to become an Apollo moon landing skeptic? A hoax believer?
Skepticism does not mean "question everything", BTW.

Link

Astronots = busted.


Link

Did you double check their findings to make sure you weren't just blindly agreeing with somebody just because they believed Apollo landed men on the moon?


Link

Men didnt land on the moon, so the photos must be fake.


You are not a "skeptic". You have made up your mind. I mean, you spent several posts defending a mockumentary when even the people who made it admitted it was fake. Even your fellow HBs told you you were embarrassing yourself.


So what I was saying is that DJ has doubts or is being intellectually dishonest about the statement he made.
You didn't say "intellectually dishonest". You implied, flat out, that he was lying.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: ++



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Your funny.
Tell me. What were you lying about and who where you lying to?


Excuse me, but aren't you the one who made this statement:


So what I was saying is that DJ has doubts or is being intellectually dishonest about the statement he made.


The fact that I emphasized the uncertainties of my interpretation is a sign of my intellectual honesty, a concept you cannot seem to grasp. Incidentally, you are not funny at all.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.


NOW you ARE calling me a liar.




Your funny.
Tell me. What were you lying about and who where you lying to?


edit on 9-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
You stated DJ was lying to everyone about his actual beliefs, and are now trying to weasel out of admitting it because of your pathalogical aversion to direct statements.

Is it clear now?

Also, you quote-mined again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOW you ARE calling me a liar. I made it perfectly clear when I was speculating, and, in fact, emphasized that we simply lacked enough information to reconstruct exactly what happened. This is called "integrity." I don't care which scenario is the correct one because your argument is based entirely on a logical fallacy in the first place. Your failure to admit that this is the case is pathetic, and now you find it necessary to resort to ad homs? A clear demonstration of the weakness of your position.


EDIT: I also note the loaded question. It should be phrased "What did I allegedly claim you were you lying about and who where you lying to? "
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: -



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

This disingenuity gambit is really tiresome, FoosM.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And either you or that person who gave you a star please explain what this video has to do with anything.


Did you watch the video? Do you really need someone holding your hand to help you figure this out, or do you simply go into massive denial whenever someone finds a primary source that contradicts your interpretation of a secondary source? In order to shoot the LRV driver in profile, the astronaut in the passenger seat would need to be able to make a quarter turn while holding the camera. A quarter turn would be enough to deposit the tool behind him.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal


Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, so you would like to interpret "Jack jumping in his seat" to "Jack jumping on his seat" ? So what you are saying is that Gene was taking pictures of Jack bouncing on his seat? Is that correct?


Yes that's what I'm saying!



Ok, why was Jack bouncing?
What purpose did that serve?






Originally posted by FoosM
Let me provide you with NASA's own words.

Photo 1.

AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.



Ok yes, they say that only that picture depicts jack mounting the LRV. Not the 3 pictures you showed. only that one is described as being Jack mounting the LRV. he obviously had to MOUNT it to be jumping ON it!!!


So you agree that mounting means jumping onto the seat.
Which you see in that picture. OK. So the next question is... when did he jump?








AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )
168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has the LRV sampler in his right hand.


Ok they said that but they also said this:


Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and 20454.


Which one is correct??


What do you mean which one is correct. Why are you asking me, ask NASA!
They are all correct if you assume that its three photos of Jack jumping into the Rover.
Except you cant accept that because I pointed out thats impossible. So now you are trying to create scenarios to explain. The only problem is NASA keeps insisting its THREE photos of Jack jumping into the Rover!






Originally posted by FoosM
Now let me ask you this. If Jack was jumping INTO his seat during the second photo.
What was he actually doing in the first photo? Was that the same action? In other words, part of the same jump? Or would you say that Jack jumped into his seat, got back off the rover, then jumped back into his seat again?


No!! What I am saying is that the 1st jump into the Rover was captured by Cerne, and is the 1st picture of the sequence and then after he was already ON the rover he jumped IN it!! and then the 2 other pics were taken trying to catch the moment he was mid-air...



Ok... let me see if I can decipher what hateeternal is trying to say here...

What he is saying is that Jack jumped into the Rover.
Click. One second, two or three seconds later (Its not clear how long after) he was in his seat.
But then Cernan tried to take two more photos of Jack in the air? Like he hopped up from his seat???
I mean... how long would that take? And again, whats the proof he did that, and why?

Anyhoo.... all this time you havent been able to explain how this astronaut, once seated managed to get rid of his sampler!

So what you havent established is how long it took to take the photos.
And during this photo session, when was the sampler gotten rid off, and where?

You actually haven't solved anything just came up with a scenario with the same problems.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



And either you or that person who gave you a star please explain what this video has to do with anything.


Did you watch the video? Do you really need someone holding your hand to help you figure this out, or do you simply go into massive denial whenever someone finds a primary source that contradicts your interpretation of a secondary source? In order to shoot the LRV driver in profile, the astronaut in the passenger seat would need to be able to make a quarter turn while holding the camera. A quarter turn would be enough to deposit the tool behind him.


DJ et al.
I thought you guys were educated in all things Apollo.
If you look at the Astronaut sitting in the Rover (via the reflection in the helmet) you will notice that he is facing forward. So how can he be sitting facing forward and at the same time we see the other astronaut next the Rover? Well, the camera attached on the Rover could pan. As a matter of fact, NASA supposedly had remote control over it.

Am I right or wrong?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
DJ et al.
I thought you guys were educated in all things Apollo.



Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 

The fact that I emphasized the uncertainties of my interpretation is a sign of my intellectual honesty, a concept you cannot seem to grasp. Incidentally, you are not funny at all.


Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 

NOW you ARE calling me a liar. I made it perfectly clear when I was speculating, and, in fact, emphasized that we simply lacked enough information to reconstruct exactly what happened. This is called "integrity." I don't care which scenario is the correct one because your argument is based entirely on a logical fallacy in the first place. Your failure to admit that this is the case is pathetic, and now you find it necessary to resort to ad homs? A clear demonstration of the weakness of your position.


I like how you're strawmanning DJ and all debunkers as claiming to be an polymath even when DJ admits his fallibility--twice--on this very same page, one post of which you responded to. And quote-mined. Heck, you seemed frustrated when I admitted I didn't know enough to understand the radiation numbers you posted and was going to shut up, a few pages back. Admitting you are fallible is a sign of strength in a debate, not weakness. If someone cannot admit they are wrong, or even the possibility that they may be wrong, it is impossible to win a debate with them.

*cough*

So, why are DB's speculation about certain aspects of the landings less credible than your gut instinct, which is supposedly better than the studied scientific judgements of kings and kingdoms?
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
How is this, I dont think DJ believed what he was saying, and I doubt you believed him as well.
Don't you dare to presume what I do or do not believe.


I dont believe you agree with what DJ wrote.
Do you agree what DJ had written?
Share with us.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You're still doing that presuming.

I don't have an opinion on whether he was right or wrong. So I don't disagree or agree. There's plenty of other evidence supporting the moon landings for a minor matter of tool usage to be inconsequential, at best. The entire exercise was to see if you still had the usual response to direct questions; evasion and obfuscation. I'm appy to say you passed.

Oh, and you still called DJ a liar, then refused to admit it.

You have already formed a belief about the moon landings, by your own admission. You ain't no skeptic.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 488  489  490    492  493  494 >>

log in

join