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: 500
377
<< 497  498  499    501  502  503 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Look like JW does post here welcome JW how about posting something THAT hasn't been debunked many times over!




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

I doubt it wmd_2008. WWu777 is a pretty clever writer. JW isn't. (judging from his Utube comments)

Read the OP. Although I personally disagree with what is written, the man is a very convincing writer. Probably worked in the advertisement field.

As to why he is doing this for JW, I'm not sure. He usually doesn't interact with the members here and posted the same OP on at least 2 other forums.

ATS does have a rule against cross-posting, not sure why they are letting this one slide.

EDIT: make that 6 - The top results on Google for the exact wording of the OP: 1. ATS 2.ukskeptics 3. disclove.tv 4. David Icke Forum 5. spruz.com 6. Godlike productions and more....
edit on 17/6/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17/6/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
What is the difference between this post on page 248 and this post on page 499?

Answer: The location.


Some people might call it spamming.
edit on 17/6/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Oh, and the Manhattan project was penetrated by the Soviets. I've heard an unsourced story that the Axis heard about it, but dismissed it as impossible. And that was a military, wartime project. NASA is a civilian agency, not military, they're scientists, not soldiers, and there are even more people on it, with much more media coverage, than the MP. The chances of something being kept secret for even a few months, much less forty years, is pretty close to impossible. It's a sucker bet to even try. It's worse odds than surviving crossing a busy freeway blindfolded with an inner-ear infection twenty times.
edit on 2011/6/17 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Well I just go through ten episodes of JW's video series on the moon rocks.
For those who want a summary of what was discussed, you can find it here in these two videos:




Perhaps the most revealing evidence that the Apollo moon rocks are fake, is the fact that when the SMART-1 space probe crashed into the Lake of Excellence in 2006 a mismatch was found between Apollo samples and the real thing. ABC News reported: "By punching a 10 meter hole in the moon's surface, the probe has uncovered minerals different to the rocks gathered on the surface during moonwalks."

The propagandists who have the guts to even mention this are desperate. Some have claimed that the lunar material collected below ground is supposed to be different. This claim is easily disproved just by looking at the deep drill core data from the later Apollo flights, which supposedly took drilling equipment to the moon.

More recently, Phil Webb has produced an extremely convoluted response and gone for volume to muddy the waters. First by twisting the reporter's words, substituting "different minerals" with "new minerals", implying that the SMART-1 merely discovered new minerals in addition to those in Apollo rocks. He is clearly distorting the quote's intended meaning. "Different minerals" generally means "different mineralogy".

Webb then claims the reporter made up the story about different minerals to sound more sensational. Then he alleges that they lifted a piece from one of their earlier articles on the discovery of lunar meteorite mineral "hapkeite", and attributed it to SMART-1. Then he claims he claims scientists *expect* to find different minerals. Which is it?

All of these claims warrant thorough responses. In regard to scientists expecting it, Webb knows this is false. Firstly, SMART-1 crashed in the lunar maria. And the Apollo samples supposedly collected from the various maria regions are generally the same in chemistry and mineralogy. Secondly, Webb went out of his way to copy and paste stuff from Randy L. Korotev's website at least once per video. Yet strangely he seemed to have missed this particular quote: "As noted above, there are known exceptions to the generalizations, and we lunatics certainly hope that we haven't discovered all the minerals and rock types that occur on the Moon. However, known samples of unusual composition and mineralogy are rare and usually occur only as small (less than 1 gram) clasts in breccias or in the soil. We have no reason to suspect, based on data obtained from orbit on the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions, that any region of the Moon is rich in types of rocks significantly different from those we know about or postulate might exist. Most ore-forming processes on Earth involve water, so we would not expect any hidden ore deposits on the Moon. Keep in mind that if more than 40 lunar meteorites have been blasted off the Moon and found on Earth, then at any given point on the lunar surface there can be rocks from any other point. For this reason, the fact that the lunar surface was "poorly sampled" by the Apollo and Luna missions is in itself not a good reason to suspect that rocks vastly different from those that we have studied exist at unsampled points on the Moon. Tens of thousands of lunar rocks and rocklets have been studied since the Apollo missions. It is highly unlikely that any yet-unfound lunar meteorite will differ substantially in the minerals it contains or in its geochemical character from the Apollo lunar rocks."

Gee, I wonder how he could have missed that! Not to mention the fact that in his previous video, he cited data from NASA's Clementine as evidence for Apollo. Yet ignored its data that indicates the lunar geology is supposedly the same as the Apollo rocks all round.

Through strained cherry picking, quote-mining and word games, Webb proceeds to allege that SMART-1's D-CIXS experiment remotely verified the chemistry and mineralogy of the Apollo samples. Reading the cited articles in context indicates the exact opposite.

He then creates the mother of all strawman arguments. Phil Webb has cut and pasted out of context clips from MoonFaker Exhibit D to falsely claim I said that calcium was the "new mineral" discovered during the SMART-1 impact. All I said was that SMART-1's D-CIXS remotely verified the CHEMISTRY of the Soviet moon samples as far as calcium goes. One would think if the Apollo and Soviet Luna samples were identical, as Phil Plait claimed, the remote detection of calcium would apply to all sample return missions, not just the Russian flights. Be sure to see Part 6 of this series for my debunking of Webb's strawman of epic proportions.

Also discussed in this video is the minerals Hapkeite, Fercilicite and Ferdicilicite, which were discovered in lunar meteorite Dhofar 280 by Anand et al. It is believed that these minerals, particularly Hapkeite, are quite common to the lunar soil. Yet they have never been found in Apollo samples. It could also be pointed out that Dhofar 280 is chemically different to the Apollo rocks.


Now what is left is JW's episode on the fake moon rock that was on display at a dutch museum.
Because as we know, when JW had a chance to ask Buzz Aldrin questions, he asked about the
dutch moon rock incident.

And we all wondered, out of all the questions to ask, why that one? So I am very curious to know what JW has found

edit on 18-6-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
FoosM, you claim to be a skeptic. You believe that the moon landings are a hoax. Yet you repeatedly refuse to describe your falsifiability conditions, which is a central part of any scientific method. In fact, you have claimed that you don't even need proof, just to find "anomalies" in the original footage. Given that an "anomaly" can be defined as "something one doesn't understand", then one would think you'd make a good faith effort to educate yourself, instead of relentlessly questioning the opposition.

So, in addition to describing what you would need to accept proof the moon landings were real, does Jarrah's video series rest on the claim DJ is trying to debunk?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do, but you won't give it, because that would require making a direct claim, something which you seem reluctant to do. Heck, I've had difficulty getting you to make a direct claim about whether or not you were making a direct claim, with the communists bit a few pages back. This is the second page in a row where you've posted videos in an attempt to razzle-dazzle everyone from the questions you refuse to answer.

I also note you completely ignored my post on the previous page where I clear up the "moon wood" issue.
edit on 2011/6/18 by 000063 because: -


jra

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
I also note you completely ignored my post on the previous page where I clear up the "moon wood" issue.


Well don't be surprised if you have to clear up the issue many many more times. I've tried to explain it multiple times myself. Starting on Page 18 of this thread and many more times since.

To HB's this is sign of NASA faking Moon rocks and they desperately cling on to this as evidence. Too bad for them that it has nothing to do with NASA or Moon rocks. It was simply a diplomatic gift from a US Ambassador to a former head of state. Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
FoosM, you claim to be a skeptic. You believe that the moon landings are a hoax. Yet you repeatedly refuse to describe your falsifiability conditions,


Thats funny, I haven't seen you do the same either.
So we are left to assume is that you would believe anything that NASA presented as evidence without
any critical review on your part. Right? I tell you what, Im not going to waste my time discussing these matters with a blind believer. Just like I wouldn't waste my time trying discussing the validity of the bible to a blind believer.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Aaand once again FoosM responds to one part of a post while pretending the rest don't exist. Maybe someday he'll upgrade to two.

I'm not a blind believer. I've checked, and I think NASA's story holds up. Other people have checked, and they don't think NASA's story holds up. That's fine by me, as long as they're making sure to look for the evidence themselves. I think they're wrong, but as long as they come by their conclusion honestly, I can respect them. Actively ignoring evidence that it wasn't hoaxed, refusing to come up with a complete theory, and hinging one's conviction on "anomalies" seems intellectually dishonest to me.

I mean, I gave everyone a partial list of things I would need explained before believing the landing is a hoax. I have publicly stated that it is possible I am wrong--which you claimed debunkers never do--and told everyone exactly what evidence I would require to change my mind. If someone wants to convince me the moon landing is a hoax, all they have to do is answer those questions, plus a few others I didn't type out.

No one has ever taken me up on it.

You and most conspiracy theorists, by contrast, absolutely refuse to say what you would require as proof. It means that you either have no idea, you have never thought of it, you don't like to even think about the possibility that you are wrong, you are incapable of imagining any hypothetical which starts with the premise that "you are wrong", or some combination of the above.

For a guy with so little time to waste debating, you've taken up a goodly portion of these 500 pages. Jarrah has been proved wrong on several points. There's nothing suspicious about that; he's done a lot of work, and can't get everything right. What is suspicious is the reluctance of his fans to admit it. With all the points he makes, why can't they concede one or two is incorrect?
edit on 2011/6/19 by 000063 because: +



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Jarrah has been proved wrong on several points. There's nothing suspicious about that; he's done a lot of work, and can't get everything right. What is suspicious is the reluctance of his fans to admit it. With all the points he makes, why can't they concede one or two is incorrect?


And why cant you all concede when he is correct?
This is a thread about JW's evidence.
He just posted a mammoth amount of material on the lunar rocks issue.
And I see few people discussing his findings.

You posted not too long ago a video by Phil Webb countering JW on his lunar sample videos.
Well JW countered back. Why aren't you addressing this?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
You and most conspiracy theorists, by contrast, absolutely refuse to say what you would require as proof. It means that you either have no idea, you have never thought of it, you don't like to even think about the possibility that you are wrong, you are incapable of imagining any hypothetical which starts with the premise that "you are wrong", or some combination of the above.
I forgot one; refusing to say what it would take to prove one wrong, on the fear that the criteria will actually be met.

Of course, the goalposts can still be moved, except it becomes much more transparent.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
Jarrah has been proved wrong on several points. There's nothing suspicious about that; he's done a lot of work, and can't get everything right. What is suspicious is the reluctance of his fans to admit it. With all the points he makes, why can't they concede one or two is incorrect?


And why cant you all concede when he is correct?
Nice job attempting to shift the question.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



You and most conspiracy theorists, by contrast, absolutely refuse to say what you would require as proof.


Actually I've seen a few people post lists..
I did so myself ages ago.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



You and most conspiracy theorists, by contrast, absolutely refuse to say what you would require as proof.


Actually I've seen a few people post lists..
I did so myself ages ago.


Yes thank you.

Thats why I dont even want to deal with someone who is simply so obsessed. The information that he is looking for is littered in this thread. Its not my problem if he doesnt want to go through, do his own research and answer his own questions. That gives little hope that people will actually bother to go through JWs videos to see if he has made a point or not. JW has just made some compelling arguments and all we have are people concerned with getting their stars for silly non relevant posts. Every post many of these NASA supporters make they get stars. What an abuse of the system.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Check out this FAQ about the Moon Hoax. It includes answers to questions about the moon rocks, laser reflectors, Soviets, etc.

www.moonmovie.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Check out this book I found:

www.amazon.com...=cm_rdp_product

One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space

Product Description

Were the famous moon landings simulated by NASA? From the very first manned flight into orbit right up to the present day there have been serious anomalies in the official narrative of the conquest of space. Bestselling author Gerhard Wisnewski dissects the history of space travel in minute detail, beginning with the first Russian missions in the early 1960s, to the final American moon project of Apollo 17 in 1972, and onwards to the American landings planned in future. Using forensic methods of investigation, he pieces together a complex jigsaw to reveal a disturbing picture of lies, falsifications and simulations. Not only does he cast serious doubt on the possibility of humans ever having landed on the moon, but he also reveals a catalogue of untruths and propaganda in the Cold War struggle for supremacy between the Soviet Union and the USA.Wisnewski produces reams of scientific evidence that calls for a reassessment of the received wisdom regarding the history of space exploration. The true story, he suggests, has a more sinister undertone. Beneath the guise of civilian space travel the US military has been developing fearsome new equipment and weapons which are being secretly stationed in space. The aim is to militarize the orbit around the earth, with our planet and each one of us as the potential targets. It is provided with over 200 illustrations.

This user review explains eloquently why NASA decided to fake the moon missions instead of doing them for real.



5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on the Apollo program, July 16, 2009
By
Auroran (Aurora, IL USA) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)

This is the best book I've encountered on the Apollo program. The author has found some interesting anomalies in the Apollo "evidence" that I have not seen elsewhere, but his main strength is his emphasis on what could be called the project management issue.

It is a matter of public record that the government built an extremely expensive, elaborate simulation facility at Langley, Virginia (home of the CIA), to mimic as far as possible the planned Apollo missions. Moreover, the author asserts that all of NASA's systems were designed to handle simulations exactly as the real thing--both simulation and reality were treated as equivalent inputs as far as all other parts of the system were concerned. Given this comprehensive simulation strategy, it would have been only "one small step" to skip the actual mission, and simply re-run the simulation as if it were real!

The author probably should have elaborated on this. For example:

After the fatal Apollo 1 disaster, Congress made clear that it would not tolerate another such tragedy, especially if due to engineering shortcuts. Yet at the same time, Congress was substantially reducing NASA's budget and losing patience with its schedule slips. From an engineer's point of view, NASA had still not solved two very hard problems: (1) to land a craft on the Moon and return it safely to earth, and then (2) to send a mammal (preferably a primate) to the Moon, subjecting it to the harsh radiation environment of deep space and the Moon's surface, then return it to earth alive and verify its good health. No ethical engineer could send humans to the Moon without first solving these two problems, and no project manager would televise a human moon landing live without first solving them.

Logically enough (in a sense), NASA project managers decided that passing off a simulation as the real thing was a less risky option than sending 3 men to their deaths on live TV.

To this day, the United States has never landed a craft on a celestial body and returned it safely to earth. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

To this day, no one has sent a mammal into deep space or onto a celestial body, returned it to earth alive, and verified its good health. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

Read this book, then ask yourself: What would a bureaucrat do in this situation, especially if squeezed from behind by a military-industrial-intelligence complex that tells him, "Failure is not an option"?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Well lets have a look the Flag waving on the surface.



Astronauts jump height



Maths not a strong point with JW supporters along with photography etc etc.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by WWu777
 


Well lets have a look the Flag waving on the surface.


Lets take this one at a time.
What exactly are you getting out of this video and how as Jarrah White countered it if it all?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Check out this book I found:

www.amazon.com...=cm_rdp_product

One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space





The debate concerning the Moon Landings is often emotional and derogatory. The official narrative is supported and sustained by an intolerant lobby that often fails to answer skeptical questions empirically and dispassionately. On the other side, are the skeptics that fall into many different polarized groups. The moderate skeptic that bases skepticism on reasonable doubt, is often ignored.


Well said, well said.

For those who do not have the means to buy the book, there is a website that
goes through Winewski's work.

LINK

I've referred to it several times during our discussion on this thread.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by WWu777
 


Well lets have a look the Flag waving on the surface.


Lets take this one at a time.
What exactly are you getting out of this video and how as Jarrah White countered it if it all?


wwu777 linked to moonmovie it is one of the points mentioned on the site so thats why I posted it stuck the others in because they show a bit of skill and maths and show up JW and his followers as a bit hard of learning I can guarantee that 150% or should that be 200%
if you watched movie 3 you will get the joke!
edit on 20-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 497  498  499    501  502  503 >>

log in

join