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: 494
377
<< 491  492  493    495  496  497 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



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..


Precisely! That's more like it! I agree that it is extremely difficult to interpret this sequence because we have no idea what the subject's objective was, so we have to make conjectures about his actions. The issue that certain posters on this thread refuse to look at is this: if this were a special effect, it would have been carefully planned in advance to achieve a specific impression. If that were the case, it would be a massive failure and would never have seen the light of day. Only reality can be this messy. Well said, have a star.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:18 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?

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



Timeline we need the timeline combined with the actions.
If you cant put those two together than all you are doing is speculating.
And therefore will have to admit that what we have here is proof of NASA making a mistake.
Just like any other film production.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



And therefore will have to admit that what we have here is proof of NASA making a mistake.


Please explain how you being able to understand something so simple is proof that NASA made a mistake? Doesn't it simply prove that you lack the imagination to figure the situation out correctly?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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..


Correct, but lets also add: the sampler shows up later in the transcript.
So to what end would throwing the sampler away accomplish if you were to use it later?
And further, wouldnt somebody say, "lets pick up that sampler we might need it later"?






"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..


All common sense observations supported by reports.




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..


This is a bit confusing.
Are you asking why would NASA fake the moon landings or ???

Assuming the scene is faked, one has to question how was the scene faked.
Because that can lead to how the mistake was made.
Whether you are using miniatures, or real characters, in composited scenes,
mistakes can be made. And with so much material to cover, the chances of making mistakes increases.

For example, during the process of photography, the actor had to take a break, he came back to shoot the next shots and they happened to forget that he was holding the sampler in his hand, or they give it to him to hold in the wrong hand. As a regular old film production or photo shoot series, such a mistake is normal. They are continuity errors.

You also have the option that maybe the Astronauts, or filmmakers where silently whistle-blowing, and made the errors intentionally.

So now the question is, how did it get by the editors or inspectors? Well easy,
they probably looked at each photo individually and not as a sequence, as in, not next to each other, and it slipped by.

And so why did it take so long to get noticed by the public? Again, very easy to explain.
Remember, these photos were not all released to the public at one time till recently for the internet.

You had to order them, which could be expensive. So why order a "sunstroke" image
of the astronaut jumping into his seat, when you can order the better image that came after?
Why even order that image if it had no scientific value?
Plus, NASA choose the best shots and provided them to the public anyway.
So if you wanted a photo for non-scientific purposes, like an article, report, etc. You would probably make
it easy for yourself and choose what was out there in the first place for free.

But thanks to the internet, thanks to people like JW, many of us start to look deeper into the archives. And thats how so many of these mistakes are being found because people are looking for them, and not accepting what they see as real.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



And therefore will have to admit that what we have here is proof of NASA making a mistake.


Please explain how you being able to understand something so simple is proof that NASA made a mistake? Doesn't it simply prove that you lack the imagination to figure the situation out correctly?


Its because of my imagination, and power to look at the whole picture, I clearly see that NASA
and the USGOV have used APOLLO as a propaganda stunt to gain power and money for various military and intelligence operations. It was not a scientific endeavor so it didnt even have to be real. It just have to be perceived as being real. I took the red pill.



For me, NASA has to prove without question that they landed men on the moon by getting confirmation via true independent research, examination of evidence, repeating the experiment, and addressing the many anomalies that have been brought up. This has not been done.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



For me, NASA has to prove without question that they landed men on the moon by getting confirmation via true independent research, examination of evidence, repeating the experiment, and addressing the many anomalies that have been brought up. This has not been done.


In other words, rather than actually explain why your inability to comprehend a sequence of images is proof of anything other than your unwillingness to engage them impartially, you spout more rhetoric. No-one is deceived by this tactic. You have wasted a dozen pages trying to ram your faulty syllogism down people's throats.

As for your concluding paragraph, it is simply wrong. All of NASA's reports and findings have been confirmed by informed researchers all over the globe; it is only a handful of under-educated conspiracy theorists who have any problem with the historical record.

I know this may come as a stunning blow to your ego, but, frankly, NASA doesn't care what sort of "proof" you want.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I know this may come as a stunning blow to your ego, but, frankly, NASA doesn't care what sort of "proof" you want.



No, it doesn't surprise me at all.
NASA only needed to fool the taxpayers of the 1960's. USGOV got their distraction for their vietnam war.
Now if they tried to pull such a stunt this day in age, they would have some serious problems. Thats why we aren't going to the moon anymore. Too many people would be ready to question it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



it is only a handful of under-educated conspiracy theorists who have any problem with the historical record.


Hmmm, OK....



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its because of my imagination, and power to look at the whole picture, I clearly see that NASA
and the USGOV have used APOLLO as a propaganda stunt to gain power and money for various military and intelligence operations. It was not a scientific endeavor so it didnt even have to be real. It just have to be perceived as being real. I took the red pill.
1. It was a scientific endeavour.
2. Is your current position that it was a hoax?


For me, NASA has to prove without question that they landed men on the moon by getting confirmation via true independent research, examination of evidence, repeating the experiment, and addressing the many anomalies that have been brought up. This has not been done.
To your satisfaction, no. To the satisfaction of thousands of independent scientists for forty years, some wielding tools that weren't even invented in 1969, yes.

What would you consider unquestionable proof? What are your falsifiability conditions?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Speaking of the Vietnam war, the Communists were supporting the other side. If they had evidence the US faked the moon landing, why not just force them to pull out? Y'know, assuming that the people smart enough to pull off this massive conspiracy involving thousands were dumb enough to decide to just hand the USSR such a long-term advantage in the Cold War.

This is the third time I've bought this up, FoosM, and you keep ignoring it. That's not the action of a skeptic. A skeptic looks at the evidence and claims of both sides. You regularly ignore inconvenient facts. One cannot come believe that the landings were hoaxed without having to explain everything, not just pointing at "anomalies" and saying "this doesn't feel right!" One needs to form a complete theory, which you refuse to do. The theory would have to be modified, of course, in light of new information, but Conspiracy Theorists don't like that, because their initial theories inevitably sound ridiculous, and their egos often can't take the idea that they aren't right about something. I hope you're better than that.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
isnt that the missing sampler??

files.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10-6-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 


Speaking of the Vietnam war, the Communists were supporting the other side. If they had evidence the US faked the moon landing, why not just force them to pull out? Y'know, assuming that the people smart enough to pull off this massive conspiracy involving thousands were dumb enough to decide to just hand the USSR such a long-term advantage in the Cold War.


Come on, I dont get why you keep bringing this up.
If you dont understand world politics by now after reading various posts on this website, then
there is no hope that you can ever understand it.


Pawns in the Game is the culmination of a lifetime of research. If understood it shakes the beliefs of most readers to their core. The amount of documentation Carr found is staggering. The occasions where he produces it are the times when it’s absolutely necessary to make what he says believable. Communism was created and funded by American bankers. Members of the same group were Roosevelt’s advisors during World War II. Carr produces enough evidence to make it believable. Hitler tried to form an alliance with Britain in order to hunt down financiers from that same group. He didn’t want to fight England. It makes sense. England and Germany were never natural enemies. Germany was the first nation to recover from the great depression. That’s well known. Carr explains why. Hitler broke away from the International Bankers and enacted a system of monetary reform. Austria (Hitler’s home Province) had enacted a similar system in the years that followed World War I. It was successful until the Rothschilds raised trade sanctions against them. Hitler’s actions provoked the bankers to the point where they initiated war against him. Carr produces solid evidence when he states these cases. Much of what he has to say contradicts most of what we spend our lives being taught. But, when placed alongside historical events most of us know about what he says makes sense. The events we knew about end up making more sense as well.


Its all a game, its all a game to keep the masses distracted from what their masters are doing.


www.conspirazzi.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
So DJ, are you ready to admit you made a mistake
regarding the film and video camera on the lunar rover?
Because you have been awfully quiet about it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
isnt that the missing sampler??


Is it?
How can you tell?
And if it is, how did it get there?
Remember, whats the TIMELINE?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


There is nothing there on the 1st or 2nd pictures. and that looks very much like the "cup" on the top of the sampler...it has that orange tone to it on the interior, that you can see on the 2nd picture.

I'll put up all three with nice resolution for you to see:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

and the timeline is:

168:47:03 - the 1st of three pics is taken with Jack jumping into the Rover.
You can see here that is says the 1st pic was at 168:47:03 .
somewhere between 03 and 08 he takes the 2nd. picture, then jack puts down the sampler by is side as you can see on the last picture.

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
( and then he takes the last one.)

168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
reply to post by FoosM
 


There is nothing there on the 1st or 2nd pictures. and that looks very much like the "cup" on the top of the sampler...it has that orange tone to it on the interior, that you can see on the 2nd picture.

I'll put up all three with nice resolution for you to see:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


I have been looking at the high resolution photos.
But there is no way you can tell if its the sampler.
Reason why, the camera man moves and shows a different area in each photo.
That can be anything. Its inconclusive.
Maybe it is the sampler, but then where is the handle?
And why is it there, is that the proper place for it?






and the timeline is:

168:47:03 - the 1st of three pics is taken with Jack jumping into the Rover.
You can see here that is says the 1st pic was at 168:47:03 .
somewhere between 03 and 08 he takes the 2nd. picture, then jack puts down the sampler by is side as you can see on the last picture.

168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
( and then he takes the last one.)

168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.


Unfortunately you cant use that page (Image Library) for the official timeline.
Its more to give an indication what period the photos where made.
So, it doesnt mean the photos where taken at that exact time.
As a matter of fact, I have found large errors between it and the official transcripts.

So when you click on:
168:47:03

It brings you to the official transcript that offers a more detailed timeline which states:


168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)


Well obviously he is not going to take a photo while he says that.
Because right after:



Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take pictures of Jack jumping in his seat


So, at 168:47:03, GENE asks JACK to hop onto the Rover.
GENE then goes to the front of the ROVER to take pictures, and JACK goes to the ROVER
to mount it. This set-up takes five seconds. Which makes sense if GENE has to walk to the front of the ROVER. It takes time to walk, and adjust the camera for the photos.

JACK then asks at 168:47:08 "Ready?"
There is a pause of four seconds, enough time to take three photos.
And GENE states "I got three of them that time."

Confirming that at 168:47:12 that the photos session is over.


168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)


This is as logical as you can make it.
Problem is, the photos dont make sense.
We need more time!

So, lets say for the sake of argument the photos where taken at 168:47:03 to 168:47:12.
Thats still only 9 seconds of time.

Now take a look at the video that DJ gave us earlier of an astronaut putting away his equipment on the rover.
Starts around 0:10.


It takes about 15 seconds for him to put that bad boy away.
The point is, in a cumbersome suit, using thick gloves, your not going to make fast movements.
Whether you are on the Earth or the Moon.


yeah wow DJ, I can sure see them looking easily over their shoulder in that suit while they are reversing their Rover to park.
LOL.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


If we could leave the condescension and empty rhetoric behind for awhile, it seems that you claim is that the entire system of communism was a hoax, perpetrated by the Jews.

I think you had better go down to your local library, and inform the authors of hundreds of history books about those very facts. I am certain they would be very interested to hear it.

I also note that the part of my post where I ask you to form a complete theory seems to have vanished.
edit on 2011/6/10 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


If we could leave the condescension and empty rhetoric behind for awhile,


I look forward to you doing just that and posting some actual information or a reasonable opinion..



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM
 


If we could leave the condescension and empty rhetoric behind for awhile, it seems that you claim is that the entire system of communism was a hoax, perpetrated by the Jews.


Where did I say it was perpetrated by "the Jews"?
You know something about it that I dont?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Nah, it seemed to be implied by the link. Every time someone mentions the Rothschilds, which are Jewish, I assume they're saying the Jews are involved.


This is only a small part of the book though. Carr traced the history of the money lenders from their beginnings through to the formation of the Illuminati by Adam Weishaupt. He also traced the House of Rothschild from their beginnings as the head of the group of Goldsmiths that financed the English Revolution.


So, is your claim that communism is a hoax?
edit on 2011/6/10 by 000063 because: +



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 491  492  493    495  496  497 >>

log in

join