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: 492
377
<< 489  490  491    493  494  495 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   


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.



The following text has been repeated several times.
And it shows us that Apollogists are ready to admit they dont know what is going on, but wont admit that Hoax believers could be correct. But that doesnt make sense, if you dont know what is going on, you cant come to the conclusion that someone is wrong. Unless there is a clear mistake with his argument.

JW pointed this out in his recent interview and videos.
Even if an Apollo astronaut, lets say Neil Armstrong, would today admit it was all a hoax, many Apollogists would simply call him a liar.

The problem is, Apollo has become a religion. Its based on beliefs and not facts.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


Let's take a look at the reflection:



Admittedly it's hard to see because it's so grainy, but I'm going to go with, no he seems half turned. You are correct that the TV camera could be turned and operated by remote control; unfortunately for your desperate theory, this was a 16mm film, that's why it has grain rather than scan lines. In any event, you can see the TV camera in the final shot.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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


I think I said he lied about something many pages ago.
So I dont know why you are getting all hot and bothered about it.
He certainly has championed on to defending NASA till its bitter end.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


Let's take a look at the reflection:



Admittedly it's hard to see because it's so grainy, but I'm going to go with, no he seems half turned. You are correct that the TV camera could be turned and operated by remote control; unfortunately for your desperate theory, this was a 16mm film, that's why it has grain rather than scan lines. In any event, you can see the TV camera in the final shot.


DJ, didnt they attach a 16mm camera on the LM!
They didnt attach it on to the astronauts!
And tell me, in the reflection, what arm is that we see, left or right?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, didnt they attach a 16mm camera on the LM!
They didnt attach it on to the astronauts!


Wrong:
en.wikipedia.org...:Lunar_Rover_diagram.png


And tell me, in the reflection, what arm is that we see, left or right?


I've given up on trying to explain reflections to you, remember?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The following text has been repeated several times.
And it shows us that Apollogists are ready to admit they dont know what is going on, but wont admit that Hoax believers could be correct.
You could be correct. However, that would require an incredibly large number of extremely unlikely events. It'd be like me winning the lottery today, even though I don't play the lottery.


But that doesnt make sense, if you dont know what is going on, you cant come to the conclusion that someone is wrong. Unless there is a clear mistake with his argument.
Argument to ignorance.


JW pointed this out in his recent interview and videos.
Even if an Apollo astronaut, lets say Neil Armstrong, would today admit it was all a hoax, many Apollogists would simply call him a liar.
Argument to hypothetical.

Armstrong would still have to explain away the mountain of scientific evidence that has been checked, double-checked, and triple-checked by thousands of scientists over forty-plus years.


The problem is, Apollo has become a religion. Its based on beliefs and not facts.
To use your favorite emote:


This is rather hypocritical of you, as you have clearly stated that the landings were hoaxes several times. Your current claim is that the actual truth is unknowable. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: -



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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


[Cernan - "It was sort of a target of opportunity. It was just one of those (unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty good picture."]

what was the purpose of taking 3 pictures of Jack mounting the rover??


Originally posted by FoosM
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?


and that is relevant because....??


Originally posted by FoosM
The only problem is NASA keeps insisting its THREE photos of Jack jumping into the Rover!

The only one insisting that these 3 pictures were taken in 4 secs is you!! NASA is not saying that...and I am not saying that!!


Originally posted by FoosM
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?


I guess you missed this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that's not really important at all is it?? the sampler is there...you just don't see it. and because you dont see it then it must have dissapeared?? andsince things dont just dissapear your calling this HOAX!

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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM
The following text has been repeated several times.
And it shows us that Apollogists are ready to admit they dont know what is going on, but wont admit that Hoax believers could be correct.
You could be correct. However, that would require an incredibly large number of extremely unlikely events. It'd be like me winning the lottery today, even though I don't play the lottery.



No, its something the US government and other governments do daily.
Lie and deceive the public.
Thats something we do know that happens and we can count on.
Just open look at the news these last few weeks.
Scandals, lies. Everywhere.

But going to the moon, landing men safely and returning them home.
Well thats like winning the lottery.

Listen, dont confuse the issue.
There is no contradiction in saying nobody knows for sure, but that the evidence points either left or right.

The evidence I have that NASA faked the moon landing is NASA's own evidence.
You want to interpret that the evidence proves they landed men on the moon.
Well, thats something you have to work out within yourself.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal


Originally posted by FoosM
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?


and that is relevant because....??


Look hateeternal.
Unless you can construct a logical timeline, and provide a logical explanation for the anomalies using NASA's information, then you might be onto something. But I doubt you can do it. But prove me wrong, show me that the photos were not taken in those four seconds. Show me the alternative timeline.


168:47:38 Cernan: Oh, let's see. If old "twinkletoes" (Gene, himself) can do it. Jack, there's a big one (a rock) right there, in my floor pan. (Pause) That's what I did last time.

[Cernan - "I did whatever I'd done the last time (at Station 8 when he fell as he tried to mount the Rover) - got my foot caught on something, or whatever."]



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The evidence I have that NASA faked the moon landing is NASA's own evidence.


We're still waiting for you to produce something that is actually evidence. So far, all you have done is state that you don't understand something, therefore it must be fake. We have explained over and over again the fallacy contained there.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
No, its something the US government and other governments do daily.
Lie and deceive the public.
Thats something we do know that happens and we can count on.
Just open look at the news these last few weeks.
Scandals, lies. Everywhere.

But going to the moon, landing men safely and returning them home.
Well thats like winning the lottery.
Not as unlikely as you think. I'd like to point out that men were killed in the space race. Then NASA went and fixed the problem, and tweaked and refined over several years. It's called "science".

Let's start with the Russians: every time they get bought up, HBs make some vague claims about "wheat deals" and change the subject. However, there are only two ways for the Russians to react in their own best interest.

Short term
US: Hey, have, uh, a million pounds of wheat so you don't give away the Moon Landings.
Russia: Two million.
US: What? Uh...okay, sure, Russia, ol' buddy.
Russia: Hey, world! The US faked the moon landing, and gave us one million pounds of wheat to try get us to help them cover it up!
US: No, it was two million!
Russia: Look, they even admit it!
US: Well, crap.

I think we both know that didn't happen. Short -term, the best advantage would be to take the bribe, expose the US anyway, and lie about the amount of the bribe. The US can't refute the discrepancy without admitting they made the bribe in the first place. Russia wins.

Long term
Russia: We're going to withdraw from the NNPT.
US: You can't do that!
USSR: I think our friend "Luna" would disagree.
+
USSR: We're going to need you to go ahead and pull out of Vietnam.
US: What? Why?
USSR: *cough*
US: Oh.
+
US: We're going to help the Taliban fight against you.
USSR: Not happening.
US: Why not?
USSR: "Polly" said so.
US: Oh, right. Polly.

Basically, any event after 1969 on this far from comprehensive timeline where the US directly or indirectly opposes Communism means they lose, since the USSR can just blackmail them. For the USSR to be in on it would require the US to directly hand the Soviets a significant strategic advantage in the Cold War, which would be remarkably stupid for guys who've managed to fool or coerce the thousands of people in the space program and the American public. Six times. Russia wins.

It requires them to be incredibly competent, and to deliberately hand their foes an advantage that would likely have bigger consequences than losing the space race. That is impossible.

This is just one of several unlikely events that has to go right for the hoax to succeed,


Listen, dont confuse the issue.
There is no contradiction in saying nobody knows for sure, but that the evidence points either left or right.
Okay, so you're saying that you're not sure the landing was faked. Thank you for being clear. This means that your earlier assertions that the landing was fake were you having a different position.


The evidence I have that NASA faked the moon landing is NASA's own evidence.
You want to interpret that the evidence proves they landed men on the moon.
Well, thats something you have to work out within yourself.
I did. It holds up.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +

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

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

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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, didnt they attach a 16mm camera on the LM!
They didnt attach it on to the astronauts!


Wrong:
en.wikipedia.org...:Lunar_Rover_diagram.png


And tell me, in the reflection, what arm is that we see, left or right?


I've given up on trying to explain reflections to you, remember?



Well that link didnt work.
But I do have this for you:





Photo: 8x10 in excellent condition and purple NASA detailed description on reverse
with repeating "A KODAK PAPER" watermarks. This photo was taken by the 16mm
motion picture camera mounted on the lunar rover.

Description: The Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott is shown placing a soil sample in a
container attached to the rover. The Hadley Delta mountains are visible in the
background.


Look familiar?

But if you still think its somehow the astronaut turning in his seat, please prove it.



stellar-views.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But if you still think its somehow the astronaut turning in his seat, please prove it.


So you didn't actually watch the video, did you?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



The evidence I have that NASA faked the moon landing is NASA's own evidence.


We're still waiting for you to produce something that is actually evidence. So far, all you have done is state that you don't understand something, therefore it must be fake. We have explained over and over again the fallacy contained there.
I find it amazing that he doesn't understand the relevance of one video, yet once it's explained he becomes a photographic expert.

Also, I forgot to call him out on that instance of quote mining.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention; you said DBs can't admit HBs might be right. I promptly did, and then explained why I don't think they are right. You ignored that admission entirely.

Remember, the odds of them pulling off the Apollo missions successfully are much lower than them being able to convince, coerce, and/or guard every single person who might or did find something incriminating for forty years. We're talking thousands of men, who would have to be watched each and every day in every single way for decades. Not possible.
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



But if you still think its somehow the astronaut turning in his seat, please prove it.


So you didn't actually watch the video, did you?


Did you read my post?

I watched the video.
I didnt see any seated astronaut turn with a camera.
I saw a camera pan. And I saw jerky movements during the pan that points to a mechanical device.

I also provided evidence that that camera was mounted on the rover.
Ill provide one more:
magazine

So you want to continue to stake your reputation by saying that video was taken by
a seated astronaut turning in his seat?

Go right ahead.

*goes gets popcorn*



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
I find it amazing that he doesn't understand the relevance of one video, yet once it's explained he becomes a photographic expert.



You want to go on record and say that the video that DJ posted shows the astronauts turning in his seat?
Do you agree with DJ? Go right ahead and make that statement for everyone. Or are you going to claim ignorance again?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Nope, I'm still middle of the road on that particular matter. I'm claiming that you said you didn't understand the video, then demonstrated an odd amount of purported knowledge after it was explained. It looks like you were being disingenuous, or hastily brushed up after the explanation.

No way to stop whistleblowing for forty years.

The Russians would either have exposed the US, or blackmailed them up until the end of the Cold War, and would likely still be doing it today, if the geniuses who pulled off this massive conspiracy were somehow stupid enough to hand the Russians such a long-term advantage for a short-term one.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Did you read my post?

I watched the video.
I didnt see any seated astronaut turn with a camera.
I saw a camera pan. And I saw jerky movements during the pan that points to a mechanical device.

I also provided evidence that that camera was mounted on the rover.
Ill provide one more:
magazine

So you want to continue to stake your reputation by saying that video was taken by
a seated astronaut turning in his seat?

Go right ahead.


Initially you claimed that it was taken by the video camera:


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?

Remember?

Well, you were wrong. If the camera were mounted on the bracket during the opening of the sequence, why did it yaw? And if it were in the bracket, how could the astronaut turn it on unless he were able to turn in his seat? Okay, so once again you have cited a secondary source to support your position. Now all you have to do is find a primary source that states that the camera could not be removed from its bracket. Are you prepared to stake your reputation on that?
edit on 9-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001



Initially you claimed that it was taken by the video camera:


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?



What!? Where did I say 'video'?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 

Nope, I'm still middle of the road on that particular matter.




Oh man thats rich.
Middle of the road.
So why aren't you criticizing DJ?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 489  490  491    493  494  495 >>

log in

join