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: 501
377
<< 498  499  500    502  503  504 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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)


Im not interested in that. Im interested to discuss the evidence point by point.
The first video you offered had to do with the flag waving. I suppose you agree with the evidence provided that the flag was either brushed against or some static charge caused the flag to move?
I want to know how JW countered that video, if he did, and how he did it.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:43 AM
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.
Do you know vaguely what page it was?


Originally posted by FoosM
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.
I have seen nothing of the sort. I see vague, unsupported speculation. For example, faking the landings would be literally giving the Russians blackmail material against the US. If one assumes the Russians were in on it, one has to assume they wouldn't stop at just wheat, unless they suddenly became very altruistic toward the US for some reason.

I don't care about stars, really. You shouldn't either, unless you're feeling insecure. ATS isn't exactly the most objective forum. The reason there are so many stars is that I'm good at sniffing out patterns, such as recognizing someone's intellectually dishonest techniques. And 500 pages has given me plenty of material to work with. Do you want me to make a partial list of your favorite tricks, so old-timers can link newcomers to it so they won't be taken in by your razzle-dazzle? Or would you like me to come up with an itemized list of the falsifiability conditions? I can think of off the top of my head?

Directing people to watch several hours worth of videos to find the answers to one simple question is a distraction technique. On several occasions, you have been asked to specify at what point in which video the relevant information was, and you have refused or ignored it.

And once again, you, in particular, refuse to describe your falsifiability conditions. I've shown you mine, despite your claim that I haven't. BiB says he's shown us his. Where's yours?


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?
I like how you don't question 77's posts, just readily agree with them. For a skeptic, you don't question your own side.
edit on 2011/6/24 by 000063 because: +


Also, I asked you whether Jarrah's video series rested on the claim DJ said it does. In fact, you quote-mined, again. Since this thread is about JW's findings, why don't you just answer the yes or no question? You can't complain about people being unwilling to discuss said findings if you refuse to.
edit on 2011/6/24 by 000063 because: ++


Oh, and don't try and tell us to watch the videos. Just tell everyone whether the videos rest on the premise DJ claims they do.
edit on 2011/6/24 by 000063 because: +++



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



Do you know vaguely what page it was?


No mate, way too many pages to remember.
I do know I wrote a list of the main things that bothered me and I did see at least two other lists.

BTW, the Russians tracking the missions really means nothing if you consider most people who say it's all a hoax usually argue that "MAN" didn't land on the moon, not equipment..
I'd say most agree they could land an unmanned craft..


jra

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
No mate, way too many pages to remember.
I do know I wrote a list of the main things that bothered me and I did see at least two other lists.


I was curious myself, so I did a few minutes of digging through your posts. Is this it? [link]


Originally posted by backinblack
I haven't seen a real "smoking gun" piece of evidence yet..
More a feeling that something isn't right..

Not going back there...
Incredibly successful manned missions for 60's tech..
Radiation differences found later..
Lack of pics taken of Earth..
The "no crater" bit still hasn't convinced me either way..

Nothing concrete but those have me on the fence..


That's the closest thing I could find as a list, but I only skimmed through your posts, so I could have missed it.


BTW, the Russians tracking the missions really means nothing if you consider most people who say it's all a hoax usually argue that "MAN" didn't land on the moon, not equipment..
I'd say most agree they could land an unmanned craft..


But if one can land unmanned spacecrafts on the Moon, then what's stopping some one from landing a manned craft on the Moon too?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Yep, that was my list


But you really think this is correct??

But if one can land unmanned spacecrafts on the Moon, then what's stopping some one from landing a manned craft on the Moon too?


I see a Huuugggeee difference..



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

But if one can land unmanned spacecrafts on the Moon, then what's stopping some one from landing a manned craft on the Moon too?


Supposedly it is the radiation in the Van Allen belt between here and the Moon.

In which a transit through by a human without sufficient shielding would result in a fatal dose of radiation to a human.

Supposedly the Apollo missions did not have this shielding.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



The first video you offered had to do with the flag waving. I suppose you agree with the evidence provided that the flag was either brushed against or some static charge caused the flag to move?
I want to know how JW countered that video, if he did, and how he did it.


Just watch every single one of Jarrah's videos, and if you find out, report back here. I think you're the only one who really cares to find out.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 



Supposedly it is the radiation in the Van Allen belt between here and the Moon.

In which a transit through by a human without sufficient shielding would result in a fatal dose of radiation to a human.

Supposedly the Apollo missions did not have this shielding.


These suppositions are wrong. Using data from Jarrah's source Kovalev, it has been shown several times in this thread that the radiation doses were within acceptable limits.


jra

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But you really think this is correct??


Yes.


I see a Huuugggeee difference..


Feel free to explain the difference then, please. Besides the obvious, like the need for living space, oxygen, and food etc. The principals behind landing an unmanned vs manned craft are both completely the same.


edit on 25-6-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Feel free to explain the difference then, please. Besides the obvious, like the need for living space, oxygen, and food etc. The principals behind landing an unmanned vs manned craft both are completely the same.


Mate, the whole thread is based on the fact that JW believes "man" did not land on the moon..

I'm not even sure why the heck you would ask that question.


It's been argued for over 500 pages already..


jra

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


My question had nothing to do with Jarrah or the validity of the Apollo missions. I am asking you specifically what you think the "huge" difference is between landing a manned craft vs an unmanned one, on the Moon. You seem to be unable or unwilling to answer that question. I assumed you had some explanation as to the differences, that you would be able to share with the rest of us.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
But you really think this is correct??


Yes.


I see a Huuugggeee difference..


Feel free to explain the difference then, please. Besides the obvious, like the need for living space, oxygen, and food etc. The principals behind landing an unmanned vs manned craft are both completely the same.


edit on 25-6-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)


The big difference is supporting life, like you said, living space, food, oxygen, shielding, etc.
That effects the design of the craft, size, weight, materials.
Now the biggest issue with that is you have to provide a means of bringing people back.
And thats where Apollo falls apart for the US.

The Americans have never showed the capabilities of return flight to Earth after landing on a foreign planet.
Their only evidence of this is Apollo. However, arguing Apollo as proof to prove Apollo could happen is circular reasoning.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



The first video you offered had to do with the flag waving. I suppose you agree with the evidence provided that the flag was either brushed against or some static charge caused the flag to move?
I want to know how JW countered that video, if he did, and how he did it.


Just watch every single one of Jarrah's videos, and if you find out, report back here. I think you're the only one who really cares to find out.


Well if you did just watch all his videos then why dont you
provide those answers instead of trying to pass the buck?

You wanted to include yourself into the conversation so provide some analysis.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well if you did just watch all his videos then why dont you
provide those answers instead of trying to pass the buck?

You wanted to include yourself into the conversation so provide some analysis.


Every time I do watch one of Jarrah's videos I do provide analysis, but you simply ignore it or change the subject. For example, you still haven't expressed an opinion on whether Jarrah willfully misrepresented Saal's research or did he simply not understand it. (In this one case, I actually think he wasn't intentionally lying.) Incidentally, you're the one demanding Jarrah's rebuttal to the "waving flag" affair. Why should anyone but you do your research?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by backinblack
 


My question had nothing to do with Jarrah or the validity of the Apollo missions. I am asking you specifically what you think the "huge" difference is between landing a manned craft vs an unmanned one, on the Moon. You seem to be unable or unwilling to answer that question. I assumed you had some explanation as to the differences, that you would be able to share with the rest of us.


Quite a pathetic,insulting post and I would have thought it a little below your standards..

You ask me to explain the difference between landing a manned craft and an unmanned craft but say to leave out this.

Besides the obvious, like the need for living space, oxygen, and food etc. The principals behind landing an unmanned vs manned craft are both completely the same.


But aside from that, can you please tell me what "unmanned" craft have NASA landed in ANY other mission using a "soft & controlled" landing suitable for man ??
If you can name one that is also of a similar size to Apollo and has return capabilities then that would be even better..

I hope you are able and willing to answer my reasonable question as it seems by YOUR post that it is easy.


jra

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Quite a pathetic,insulting post and I would have thought it a little below your standards..


Well I'm sorry, but I felt a little offended myself, because I felt you were deliberately dodging my question.


You ask me to explain the difference between landing a manned craft and an unmanned craft but say to leave out this.


If that's the huge difference you were referring to, then you're free to say so. I'm not stopping you. I figured the size and weight difference would be obvious, thus a moot point. The question was, what's the difference between landing a manned craft vs an unmanned one. How is it possible to do one and not the other? The physics behind it are exactly the same. You just need to deal with a larger, heavier spacecraft for the manned one.


But aside from that, can you please tell me what "unmanned" craft have NASA landed in ANY other mission using a "soft & controlled" landing suitable for man ??


The Surveyor Program.


If you can name one that is also of a similar size to Apollo and has return capabilities then that would be even better..


There are none.


I hope you are able and willing to answer my reasonable question as it seems by YOUR post that it is easy.


What seems easy?


jra

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
The big difference is supporting life, like you said, living space, food, oxygen, shielding, etc.
That effects the design of the craft, size, weight, materials.


Yes, it sure does.


Now the biggest issue with that is you have to provide a means of bringing people back.
And thats where Apollo falls apart for the US.


How does it fall apart?


The Americans have never showed the capabilities of return flight to Earth after landing on a foreign planet.
Their only evidence of this is Apollo. However, arguing Apollo as proof to prove Apollo could happen is circular reasoning.


Do you have any evidence that the LM was unable to land and return from the Moon? There were some brilliant engineers working at Grumman (some of whom were from Avro Canada too!), who designed the LM. Show me some evidence that these engineers were incapable of designing the LM to do its job, and thus they'd also have to be in on the hoax. Or that the engineers were completely inept, thinking they designed something that worked, but they really didn't.
edit on 25-6-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
501 pages of talk. Answer me this, man walked on the moon decades ago, why have we not been back? Oh hang on I know the answer....... Because we never went there in the first place. The footage looks like a Thunderbirds episode. wake up if you think man landed on the moon back then.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I think the problem we're having is context..

When I say "manned landing" I am talking about the entire mission,
not just the actual landing..

Sorry if that was confusing and thank you for that link..
They were pretty comparable landings at 3m/s..
Though they weren't all perfect.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Asked and answered multiple times. Read before you post.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 498  499  500    502  503  504 >>

log in

join