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: 495
377
<< 492  493  494    496  497  498 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well, I did just point out that the implied claim of "communism=hoax" seems to disagree with hundreds of history books.




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

Originally posted by 000063

I also note that the part of my post where I ask you to form a complete theory seems to have vanished.


Wow. What does that mean, complete theory?

You want me to offer a theory?

The anomalies and contradictions found in the evidence that NASA has provided to claim they conducted a manned moon landing with the Apollo program points to the moon landing as being a hoax.

Thats my theory.

Littered throughout this thread, you will find such contradictions and anomalies posted by myself and others. Some have been satisfyingly explained while others have not.

I hope that clears it up for you.









posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
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.


You assume that with everyone's religion?
So if Rothschilds happened to have been Baptists you would find that relevant to mention as well?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well, I did just point out that the implied claim of "communism=hoax" seems to disagree with hundreds of history books.


How is communism a hoax?
I dont get you man.

And how do you know his theory disagrees with hundreds of history books?
Maybe those books simply didnt touch upon such details.

At any rate, Americans and Russians where sharing literally the same SPACE during the height of the cold war.
How does that make any sense unless they were acknowledging the hoax they had perpetuated on their people?

Thats like the US and Al-Queda teaming up for a deep sea dive to explore some deep abyss in the Pacific Ocean.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosMYou assume that with everyone's religion?
So if Rothschilds happened to have been Baptists you would find that relevant to mention as well?
If there was a sizable body of conspiracy theorist literature naming "the Baptists" in general as being the nefarious puppetmasters behind world events, and often the Rothschilds as a powerful and influential Baptist family in particular, and you had linked to a site which openly admitted to being about conspiracy theories, yes, I would.

Was the point of your post to claim that Communism is a hoax? If not, then what the point?

EDIT: I would like to point out that the Rothschilds are ethnically Jewish, not religiously.
edit on 2011/6/10 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
And how do you know his theory disagrees with hundreds of history books?
Maybe those books simply didnt touch upon such details.
There is a fringe belief system called Breatharianism. It posits that human beings can live entirely upon sunlight. Most medical texts do not discuss it. Does that mean that Breatharianism is valid?


At any rate, Americans and Russians where sharing literally the same SPACE during the height of the cold war.
How does that make any sense unless they were acknowledging the hoax they had perpetuated on their people?
You remember how Obama invited Hilary to become the Secretary of State after he won? The Apollo-Soyuz program was something similar. An olive branch extended to the "loser" of the Space Race. Remember, that mission was after Apollo 11.

So your current position is that there was, undeniably, a hoax.


Thats like the US and Al-Queda teaming up for a deep sea dive to explore some deep abyss in the Pacific Ocean.
Considering that Al-Qaeda has, to date, demonstrated little interest in deep sea exploration, I don't think your analogy is relevant.
edit on 2011/6/10 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


how about this they did land but were unable to record the event because of the radiation so they faked the video as to have some proof
just thought id put that in the mix



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by philware
 


Phil, I strongly suggest you read the first dozen or so pages of this thread. Jarrah is a fraud. He is, at worst, deliberately misleading, and at worst, staggeringly incompetent. He lies, he misrepresents, he obscures, and is about prone to complete bollocks.

www.youtube.com...

PhilWebb59 has done an excellent job of breaking down White's nonsense, and I strongly suggest you view several of his videos.

EDIT: I have absolutely no recollection of typing "about prone to complete bollocks" whatsoever. That was supposed to be a witty simile about his reliability, such as comparing him to a two-legged stool. I need sleep.

Does anyone know if this thread autolocks when reaching pg 500?
edit on 2011/6/10 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


Excuse me? Excuse me? Am the one who wrote this?


Well, the camera attached on the Rover could pan. As a matter of fact, NASA supposedly had remote control over it.


Or this?


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


Now you're trying to make it look like I was the one that made your mistake? Really? FoosM, there's not even a word for that preposterous tactic. Rather than waste time trying to argue over whether the astronaut needed to turn in his seat to operate the film camera like that, I'll just let it slide because it doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter where the astronaut stowed the sampler.

As was pointed out about a hundred pages ago when you first brought this sequence up, your entire argument is a complete fallacy. Let me remind you what an "argument from ignorance" is:


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.

Wikipedia

You have actually incorporated your fallacy into a flawed syllogism:

"If I do not understand something, it must be false and if something is false it must be fake. I do not understand this photo, therefore it is false. Since this photo is false, it must be fake."

Do you admit that there is a teeny weeny little flaw in your reasoning? That not understanding something means that it must be a hoax? In order for this "photo anomaly" to be evidence for your "theory," you must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it cannot possibly have been taken anywhere but on the Earth. This is as low as the bar can possibly be set for you, otherwise it could be argued that the photos may indeed be staged, but they were staged in a studio on the Moon. You know, at one of those secret moon-bases just a bit down crazy street from your own theory.
edit on 11-6-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.

edit on 11-6-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well, I did just point out that the implied claim of "communism=hoax" seems to disagree with hundreds of history books.


Damn, I thought the thread was about JW videos..
Sorry, do carry on about communism and history books...
My mistake..



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Damn, I thought the thread was about JW videos..
Sorry, do carry on about communism and history books...


I agree. Could we please return to what Jarrah White has to say about things? FoosM keeps introducing extraneous material.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well, I did just point out that the implied claim of "communism=hoax" seems to disagree with hundreds of history books.


Damn, I thought the thread was about JW videos..
Sorry, do carry on about communism and history books...
My mistake..
Me? It was FoosM who bought up the book that claimed that communism was some sort of hoax, or perhaps that the communists are really controlled by the same secret cabal capitalists are. I'm still not sure what his point was with that post, and would really like some sort of clarification.

I'd also like to know what he would consider proof that the landings happened. And if he has a theory more elaborate than "the anomalies mean NASA faked it".

That's like saying a ketchup stain on my shirt means I ate lunch at Burger King. I point out it's actually tomato sauce from the pizza I had, and the person keeps insisting it's actually ketchup. I produce my receipt, and the person says its faked. I take him to Dominos, have the employees recognize me, and he says they're paid off. I take him to Burger King, and the employees say I didn't have lunch there, and he says they forgot, I was in disguise, or i went to another Burger King. I have the stain chemically analyzed, and he says the scientists were paid off. All speculation, without proof. By this point, any benefit from me lying about my lunch location is more than erased by the outlay of the bribes he alleges I've made, and that's ignoring the fact that even ketchup could've come with McDonald's, Wendy's, any one of a dozen restaurants, or even a sandwich I bought from home.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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.


Excuse me? Excuse me?


When are yo going to admit that you made a mistake?
Or was it intentional?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

FoosM, what was the point of this post? I guessed it was claiming Communism itself was a hoax, and I seem to have been mistaken. So what was your point?

Also, what would you consider "proof" of the landings?

Also, do you actually read the entirety of the posts you respond to, or do you just quote-mine them and add "
"? Because you seem to have a habit of quoting the first sentence or two and ignoring the entire rest of the post, especially if it contains a detailed rebuttal of you, or challenge for you to prove something.
edit on 2011/6/11 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Me? It was FoosM who bought up the book that claimed that communism was some sort of hoax, or perhaps that the communists are really controlled by the same secret cabal capitalists are. I'm still not sure what his point was with that post, and would really like some sort of clarification.


Very simple. You keep bringing up that the Soviets would have outed the Americans regarding their space hoax.
Making it sound like the Soviets could be used as independent proof. I was merely showing you that
1. communism was backed by western bankers.
2. US and USSR have been collaborating their space efforts since the 70's.
3. The there was a major wheat deal between the US and the USSR.
4. The USSR has been suspected of lying about their program as well.

So, why would the USSR out the US?
What would they gain?
Please answer.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Very simple. You keep bringing up that the Soviets would have outed the Americans regarding their space hoax.
Making it sound like the Soviets could be used as independent proof. I was merely showing you that
1. communism was backed by western bankers.
If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both use the same bank, does that mean Apple and Microsoft aren't competitors?


2. US and USSR have been collaborating their space efforts since the 70's.
After, as I pointed out, the USSR lost the Space Race. If your point is evidence the US and USSR were collaborators, perhaps you would like to cite evidence from before Apollo 11(1969).


3. The there was a major wheat deal between the US and the USSR.
The USSR would have absolutely no reason to stop at wheat. They could either expose the US and use the wheat as evidence, which is a better long-term political gain than the wheat itself, or just blackmail the US to keep out of their way for the duration of the Cold War.

And if the two factions are in collusion, as your first point darkly implies, there would be no need for any wheat bribe.


4. The USSR has been suspected of lying about their program as well.
Which makes it all the more likely they would lie about the US. Having proof, which they would have in the event of a fake moon landing, would be even better.


So, why would the USSR out the US?
What would they gain?
Please answer.
They would make the US look like frauds and charlatans who defraud their own taxpayers out of billions of dollars. It's the equivalent of two men running for mayor, and Smith provides proof that the incumbent Jones is embezzling.
edit on 2011/6/11 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/6/11 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063


So, why would the USSR out the US?
What would they gain?
Please answer.
They would make the US look like frauds and charlatans who defraud their own taxpayers out of billions of dollars. It's the equivalent of two men running for mayor, and Smith provides proof that the incumbent Jones is embezzling.


How could they do that? Who would have believed them back in the 60's during the cold war?
You?



Do you read Russian?




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
It all looked a bit too much like myth busters, including the "busted" stamp and totally flawed experiments.


I just love it when people make remarks like this without backing up their claim to debunk. Do your own research and present your findings. Don't leave remarks that you can't back up.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiouswa

Originally posted by -PLB-
It all looked a bit too much like myth busters, including the "busted" stamp and totally flawed experiments.


I just love it when people make remarks like this without backing up their claim to debunk. Do your own research and present your findings. Don't leave remarks that you can't back up.


Quoting something from the 1st page tells me a lot about your "research" aswell.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 492  493  494    496  497  498 >>

log in

join