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: 493
377
<< 490  491  492    494  495  496 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So why aren't you criticizing DJ?


Same reason manmental and backinblack never criticize you, perhaps?




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What!? Where did I say 'video'?


Your petty word games are driving me mad. You said the camera mounted on the Rover. Singular. You were clearly not yet aware that there was also a film camera on the LRV; that's why you assumed that it could be remotely operated. Games, games, games....



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?
Because I'm not conversant with the matter you two are discussing, and he's a big boy who can handle his own argument. All I was doing was pointing out your usual tactic of being disingenuous, and then acting like an expert once the point is explained.

Stillll quote-mining. No way to explain the coverup, and no way anyone hyper-competent enough to pull off everything else in the 'spiracy is going to hand the Russians an advantage.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Actually, MM did ask him to stop embarrassing himself after he refused to admit he used a mockumentary for evidence, IIRC.

Which reminds me; I altered the links to the ISPA paper in this post and others. The file is actually a .PDF, yet I linked to a .DOC. If anyone would've noticed, I would've just admitted I linked to the wrong thing. I'm just going to assume that the HBs either read the version that was linked in your post, or that they never bothered to check the actual document to see it said what I said/you said it said.

Some "skeptics".
edit on 2011/6/9 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 





The only "logical' explanation is that the astronaut "threw" the sampler away..


but even if he did toss it.. it would have shown up on the film as falling out of his hand within 1 sec, and s/b blured or you'd see it in mid-air since the rock and the feather fall at the same rate on the moon surface.
)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


So why aren't you criticizing DJ?

Same reason manmental and backinblack never criticize you, perhaps?


If you feel the need to bring me into your useless posts such as this one then at least do try to tell the truth...

I HAVE criticized both sides of this debate and you KNOW it..

You on the other hand, say Phil Plait just slips when HE outright LIES...
And NASA is God....



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I HAVE criticized both sides of this debate and you KNOW it..


True, and I have given you stars on this and other threads when you have made a good point, and you frequently make good points... usually on other threads.


You on the other hand, say Phil Plait just slips when HE outright LIES...
And NASA is God....


And you wonder why you come across as biased?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 


I HAVE criticized both sides of this debate and you KNOW it..

True, and I have given you stars on this and other threads when you have made a good point, and you frequently make good points... usually on other threads.

You on the other hand, say Phil Plait just slips when HE outright LIES...
And NASA is God....

And you wonder why you come across as biased?


Biased??
Why am I biased DJ??
I've stated they all like to lie and twist the truth to suit their needs..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Biased??
Why am I biased DJ??
I've stated they all like to lie and twist the truth to suit their needs..


This will be my last post on this "issue." You state that "they all like to lie and twist the truth to suit their needs." That's true; but you only ever seem to be proactive on the "anti-NASA" or "anti-establishment" or "anti-America" side. Fine. That's your prerogative. Your stance sometimes speaks truth to power; at other times it just encourages mindless, knee-jerk speculation. Believe it or not, I have a certain amount of respect for you, but the way you abuse your supposed position of "objectivity" makes me wonder if it is in support of a personal agenda. Let's make a deal: every time you criticize one side of an argument, you couple it with a critique of the other side. If you can do that, I'll accept your claims to "objectivity." If you don't... well, I'll just continue to consider your position as a "stalking horse."

To the Mods: This is entirely off-topic, but relevant. Please delete it after a suitable span of time.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Let's make a deal: every time you criticize one side of an argument, you couple it with a critique of the other side. If you can do that, I'll accept your claims to "objectivity." If you don't... well, I'll just continue to consider your position as a "stalking horse."


You're asking a lot of work from me..
You gonna do the same??

"Stalking horse" ?? That's a new one DJ...
Not sure what a stalking horse does..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I'm merely telling you where to find the information you lack. Such as, f'r instance, Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...


A stalking horse is a person who tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against them on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable and/or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare their interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association and can either drop the idea completely or bide their time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


OK..Let's look where we are with these 3 pics..
The main question appears to be the disappearance of the sampler..
But here's a few things that have been asked and my opinion..

"The 4 sec time frame is not correct..."
I'd have to say from many posts that it is close to correct as the pics seem to show a similar scene..
Having said that, NASA isn't perfect and who's to say there isn't a few seconds error in the transcript?

"The astronaut threw the sampler away"
I asked how important and delicate the sampler is..
I wouldn't expect astronauts to treat equipment that way but maybe someone can show where they did on a previous occasion..Also, if the astronaut DID throw it away then I might expect that to be mentioned in the conversation..

"The astronaut turned and put the sampler away behind him"
I know this is your option DJ and if it was here on earth,driving a dune buggy, then I'd buy the idea but being on the moon is a different story..
It would be difficult to turn with the full EVA suit..Not just how awkward it would be but also the mass of the suit is quite high as you know..Turning and stopping, then turning back and stopping with a 25kg backpack is NOT that easy in 1 second..
Their gloves would make it difficult to locate and lock away anything quickly and even their vision was not that flash with helmet and visor on..


But another question I did ask and it seems to be lost in the thread is,

'
"Why would NASA fake it, for what purpose?"
To me, that is the hardest question to answer..
The scenario does seem odd and no answer I've seen so far fits perfectly but that's not to say there isn't one...
I see NO reason for NASA to fake the situation and my only quibble is when people say it is solved/explained..
It isn't but I'm not convinced it really matters..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




And you continue to defy common sense and refuse to actually try it for yourself.


and if FoosM did, would you label him as you did JW for attempting to try it for himself?? or would you give FoosM credit and recognition because he did?? Because for you to make the statement in the quote, you might as well be saying it to JW as well..

So, just to be clear on your statement, are saying that by trying it ourselves, lends creditability to our theories??



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by DJW001
 




And you continue to defy common sense and refuse to actually try it for yourself.


and if FoosM did, would you label him as you did JW for attempting to try it for himself?? or would you give FoosM credit and recognition because he did?? Because for you to make the statement in the quote, you might as well be saying it to JW as well..

So, just to be clear on your statement, are saying that by trying it ourselves, lends creditability to our theories??



I think you should re read DJWOO1's post he is saying that Foosm comes up with strange reasons of why he thinks the thing is a hoax just look at his shadow picture he posted he cant even work out what the shadows should look like.

He posted this pic with his arrows pointing out what HE thought were shadow problems!!!!!



Look at how he draws the arrows which take NO ACCOUNT for the slope of the terrain they are falling on he is as bad as JW.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Has this been seen yet?






posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack


"The astronaut turned and put the sampler away behind him"
I know this is your option DJ and if it was here on earth,driving a dune buggy, then I'd buy the idea but being on the moon is a different story..


Hmm ok, So now you agree that they are really on the moon?

I have given 3 examples of places where he might have put down the sampler...

- Attached to a waist-mounted "yo-yo" tether.


- Next to the LRV console.


- Next to the LRV Console sticking out toward the front of the vehicle


edit on 10-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal

Originally posted by backinblack


"The astronaut turned and put the sampler away behind him"
I know this is your option DJ and if it was here on earth,driving a dune buggy, then I'd buy the idea but being on the moon is a different story..


Hmm ok, So now you agree that they are really on the moon?



Now DJW, can you see what I have to put up with??

Good idea of yours..



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



What!? Where did I say 'video'?


Your petty word games are driving me mad. You said the camera mounted on the Rover. Singular. You were clearly not yet aware that there was also a film camera on the LRV; that's why you assumed that it could be remotely operated. Games, games, games....



Wow... talking about going down the rabbit hole.

See people, even when faced with evidence and common sense explanations,
Apollogists cannot not let go of their fantasies, and create new ones, to discount what they
hear and read.

So DJ has to make a post making statements that are not true only because the alternative does
not fit his world view. How can you have a rational discussion with this kind of mindset??

Now I have no problem saying I made a mistake assuming that the film camera (16mm DAC) could also move remotely on the Rover, so if that confused you I apologize, but that does not mean I wasn't talking about it. And it really doesnt matter, video or film, there were TWO cameras attached to the lunar rovers:

Here is your 16mm DACs mounted on the rovers.
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

See, its not attached to anybodies chest, the Astronaut simply could turn it to film themselves in their
fake moon studio.


Film shot from the 16mm DAC camera during EVA 2 showing Mount Hadley.




And the object covered in gold is the TV camera.
Also, mounted on the rover.

So astronauts did not have to turn in their seats to film each other.
They couldnt anyway!

Geez.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 490  491  492    494  495  496 >>

log in

join