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: 51
377
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Hey ppK,

Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...


Notice anything strange? It is supposed to be a flyby of the 'Apollo 17 landing site using the data gathered from the JAXA/Selene mission.

Keith Laney's Forum was talking about it - he made an image highlighting the repeating features:
www.keithlaney.net...


Another pic - look at all of those repeating features
:



Here is the Japanese cation to go with the youtube video:

月周回衛星「かぐや」の地形カメラ(TC)が観測したアポロ17 号着陸地点


Here is the Babelfish translation. It shall have to suffice for now:

The month circumference satellite “or the [gu] and” the topographical camera (TC) Apollo 17 which was observed the landing point (C) JAXA/SELENE




[edit on 16-5-2010 by Exuberant1]




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by debunky
When NASA was hoaxing the Moon Missions, they didn't have access to the JAXA data


Couldn't all of the unmanned missions prior to the Apollo landings have provided them with the correct 3D topographical data they needed to fake it?

Surely they wouldn't take the risk of just making up a horizon. They'd know we would be back in 10 - 20 years to verify it. Right ?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by ppk55]


Yes, of course.

And then they also sent up little robots, to make footprints, and cars to make tracks, and left items there exactly matching the Apollo stuff, because of course they knew that not only the US, but other countries would be sending up high resolution mapping spacecraft...

While they were at it, they also faked World Wars I and II, all of recorded history, and the entire USA. I mean, what proof do you have of where you live?

Thing is, ppk, there comes a time when the backtracking you have to do, and the new conspiracies you have to invent as each bit of new corroborative evidence comes up.. becomes patently and blindingly RIDICULOUS.

To you, all this is quite plausible. To me....


Yeah, sure they accurately mapped the lunar terrain prior to 1969. Just no-one noticed all those extra missions..

Did it ever occur to you that if all those imaginary missions were necessary SIMPLY because of the enormous amount of documentation from all the Apollo missions... why didn't they just send (or fake) one mission to a flat area (ummm, that would be Apollo 11!) and then STOP. I mean, if they knew all this new evidence would be forthcoming, isn't that an easier solution? Why the heck do all the other missions?

Occam, dear boy. ..or..

OCKHAM!

[edit on 16-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Keith Laney's Forum was talking about it - he made an image highlighting the repeating features:


There does appear to be cloning on that single frame, but what is your point, exactly? Have you asked Jaxa about it?

And in the spirit of good research, would you mind posting a link to that discussion on Keith Laney's forum? I couldn't see it on his forum page.


I thank you in advance for your cooperation.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


You are either not familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor or you are actually referring to the 'Internet Occam's Razor'...

From your last post, it seems that it is the 'Internet Occam's Razor' to which you are referring.

*They are not the same.





Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

en.wikipedia.org...



What is easier and requires less entities for a convincing outcome, doing a lunar EVA or faking one?

Internet Occam's Razor says as it is easier to fake [at least] the moonwalk portion of the missions and simpler (requiring less entities) to produce convincing moonwalk scenes; therefore the moonwalks we saw were faked.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Komodo, may I suggest:

1. If you are replying to someone/something, please QUOTE it so we know what you are talking about.

2. Do not embed wide images, they screw up the page formatting. (Added - thanks to the mods, for fixing this..)

3. If your 'code' shows (eg ..." target='_blank' />"), that should tell you that you made a mistake in your embedding/linking. Please correct it.

4. Try to keep ontopic, mmmkay?


[edit on 15-5-2010 by CHRLZ]


NO .. i don't HAVE to quote .. it's general statement.. DUH !

2). Don't have time

3)????

4). it IS on tiopic .. wow.. but .. yea.. you got a star that one huh .. whoo mhoo



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Keith Laney's Forum was talking about it - he made an image highlighting the repeating features:


There does appear to be cloning on that single frame....


That is your determination.

Perhaps you should write JAXA and ask them about this. I'm sure they will provide you with an acceptable answer.




*Hey fellas,

I don't know about you guys, but doesn't this make you trust JAXA even more?




Visit the youtube links that are on the image and see the video for yourselves. Just keep trusting JAXA, though k?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Folks,

I have embedded the screenshot from the JAXA video that was discussed on Keith Laney's site so you can view it in-thread.


Here you go:



(Look at those repeating features
)

www.keithlaney.net...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are either not familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor or you are actually referring to the 'Internet Occam's Razor'...

From your last post, it seems that it is the 'Internet Occam's Razor' to which you are referring.

*They are not the same.




Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

en.wikipedia.org...



What is easier and requires less entities for a convincing outcome, doing a lunar EVA or faking one?

Internet Occam's Razor says as it is easier to fake [at least] the moonwalk portion of the missions and simpler (requiring less entities) to produce convincing moonwalk scenes; therefore the moonwalks we saw were faked.



Are you in some sort of time warp? Or simply determined that everything is about *you*?

That conversation was NOT about your lame "easier to do a fake eva" claim from many pages back.

It was about the MANY ADDITIONAL things that would have been required (eg earlier moon missions to do terrain mapping, and then drop stuff on the moon, lay tracks, place laser reflectors..) to continue supporting the Apollo denial.

Now let's look at your definition again:
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
"the simplest solution is usually the correct one".

So the choice is:
Multiple, complex, remote controlled missions that no-one ever saw, and for which no evidence is presented, and that all of the Apollo missions and all aspects were faked in a way that would fool the entire scientific, engineering and telecommunication communities for over 40 years?

Or the COMPREHENSIVELY evidenced Apollo missions...

Yes, it's a hard one. For YOU.




And stay tuned, it's time for your audit, see next post...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
In the interest of DENYING IGNORANCE, I would now ask Exuberant1 - explain these quotes from earlier in the thread.

1

please post some Russian pictures of the Apollo Landers

What made Exuberant1 think that Russia had sent spacecraft with sufficiently high resolution imaging abilities to the Moon? No-one here made that claim.

2

Have you seen a point-by-point rebuttal anywhere

Embarrassingly, such a rebuttal was indeed right there. From me, and here it is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That rebuttal is comprehensive, point by point, with video timings and full explanations. None of it has been disputed by anyone, let alone Exuberant1.

Here is Exuberant1's 'response':

That wasn't a very good rebuttal.


Yep, that's it. That's ALL he could manage. Comprehensive and well-argued, isn't it...


Hands up anyone who thinks that might indicate someone out of his depth?

3

Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.


There is a very clear implication that all the bolded words were spoken by Frank Byrne. But he did NOT use those words and the only evidence provided for anything like it, is a video of a very drunk man who doesn't even refer to Apollo at any time during the discussion, and the question he was asked is edited out. No wonder Exuberant1 avoided citing the source. Deliberately deceitful and misleading.

Exuberant1 needs to explain why he worded that in a way clearly intended to deceive, and without explaining it was his interpretation, not Frank Byrne's words. He also needs to explain on what basis he 'knows' that Frank Byrne was referring to Apollo, given the question was edited out.


Exuberant1 did have one more go at 'debate', after I went to some lengths explaining the out of focus smudges, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exuberant1's response:

Your 'out of focus in the foreground' theory is not applicable to these images and does not account for the lights illuminating the alleged lunar surface.


???? In other words.. "nyer nyer, is not either!" Again, Exuberant1 seems incapable of actually debating anything or providing countering evidence, examples or links. I even explained to him what he needed to research, eg the depth of field calculations required for a Zeiss Biogon 60mm lens on a 70mm Hasselblad.. but he went all quiet again. Surely he would *want* to prove his theory correct?



Judge for yourselves, good readers..

Over to you, Exuberant1. Explain yourself.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
NO .. i don't HAVE to quote .. it's general statement.. DUH !

A general statement.. about Jarrah White videos? It sounded like a whine about the way the forum operates, and seeing you didn't quote anybody, how would we know?


2). Don't have time

Oh that's just fine - don't worry, a moderator did it for you, and it appears you didn't even notice. Does mum clean your room for you at home?


3)????

Didn't you even bother to check your post after you submitted it? If you had, you would've seen the code text I quoted. It's now gone because a moderator fixed it for you.


4). it IS on tiopic .. wow.. but .. yea.. you got a star that one huh .. whoo mhoo

Which bit exactly was about JW videos, again?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


So why do you think JAXA chose to clone so many features in that video?

Do you think it was a simple mistake, or done on purpose?

*I see you still have not watched Moonfaker Exhibit D.

Poor form.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1


What is easier and requires less entities for a convincing outcome, doing a lunar EVA or faking one?


By far it would be harder to fake an EVA. How do you:

-fake the lunar regolith? The stuff they made for the astronauts to practice on was woefully inadequate.

-fake the behavior of 1/6 gravity

-fake the behavior of a vacuum?

-fake the signals that were definitely coming from the moon?

-fake the backgounds that we now know are identical to what is actually there?

-fake the moon rocks that every geologist that has examined them say came from the moon?

-fake every one of the thousand of pictures and film and video without the modern computer graphics programs we have now?

-fake the telemetry that recorded every breath, every heartbeat, every movement of the spacecrafts?

-fake the building of the CM and LM? Was every technician, engineer and craftsman building them in on the conspiracy?

No, it would be much easier to just do it.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So why do you think JAXA chose to clone so many features in that video?

I've no idea, but YOU have raised it. Is this from a JW video and on-topic? You are the one who should be fleshing out this issue and explaining it's relevance.


Do you think it was a simple mistake, or done on purpose?

My guesses are worthless, just as are your pontifications, but I'd guess it is just being used as an end frame for the video - maybe they particularly wanted to use that scene for some reason but there were areas of transmission loss.

I'll happily concede that IF this was an image being presented as an accurate data set from the Kaguya mission, and IF it has been cloned, then it would be highly questionable. But those two things are not clear. If it's just a 'title frame', who cares?


*I see you still have not watched Moonfaker Exhibit D.

I see you still have not yet watched all of the Apollo DVD sets, or "In the Shadow of the Moon", or researched anything in any depth whatsoever. Nor have you apologised for your deliberately misleading Frank Byrne 'quote'.


Poor form.

I'll happily look at any credible sources. That doesn't include Jarrah White, who is now well proven as a hoaxster.

You, however, are happy to present misinformation. That is MUCH poorer form.


All those questions are awaiting above...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

*I see you still have not watched Moonfaker Exhibit D.

Poor form.


No. "poor form" is not having the intellectual ability to form your own arguments and just pointing to a video and saying "look at that".

That's intellectual laziness at its most brazen form.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


You know what happens when you tear Mini Me (old joke) a new one don't you?

You get added to that special ignore list


Ignoring those that disagree with you!

Quite unbecoming of The champion Of Debate, is it not?




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
You know what happens when you tear Mini Me (old joke) a new one don't you?


No, no... please tell me it isn't...


You get added to that special ignore list


Aaargh - I knew it! A fate worse than death!!!



Ignoring those that disagree with you!

Given the contentless replies to date, it's not really much of a change.


The important thing is that this thread will be very useful to anyone who either is tempted to believe in the deniers, or who stumbles over JW's videos. (I'd have to say, I'm amazed anyone can watch them for more than ten minutes - that voice is excruciatingly annoying, even if you are naive enough to accept the content.)

It seems to me that EVERY point made by the deniers is being copiously, competently, and thoroughly deBUNKed right here. Nothing is being left unchallenged, and I for one welcome anyone who thinks that something was not covered in sufficient detail..

What I don't welcome are time-wasting blowhards who can't argue a case in their own words, and who lazily, shallowly post other people's videos without showing their understanding of the issues.

It's tragic. And it SERVES THEM RIGHT when they get thoroughly busted, eg cough-FRANK BYRNE-cough. If they don't see themselves getting busted, then it makes it more fun, imo, so he can ignore away.. (I'm so evil...)


Quite unbecoming of The champion Of Debate, is it not?

Never was there a more ironic self-aggrandisement...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


The real irony about the Frank Byrne debacle is that he quoted him as an expert, and yet at the end of the quote, Byrne clearly says categorically that we did go to the moon.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
A view month ago i investigated the "Identical Background" Issue. This was my result:


Originally posted by cushycrux
My last post here to take you all seriously:


This is the same WALLPAPER?



UPDATE:
Perfect Fit of "Field of View" from that Prof. PDF.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
A view month ago i investigated the "Identical Background" Issue. This was my result:



Can you give us a link to the images you are using?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Sadly this thread is much the same as past similar moon threads in the history of ATS. Once the fanboys of the fame seeking, usually DVD selling 'experts' are met with logical, scientific debate they quickly become confused and realise they're out of their depth. If the answer isn't in the video they so carefully cradle they quickly resort to distraction and evasion tactics, though sadly rarely the more appropiate reaction of silence while they actually learn something useful.
If it's any consolation though, they usually fall silent after a year or so once they move out of home after flunking school and they can't afford a computer or pay any Internet bills on their McDonald's wages.
It's just a sad indication of the type of society (much like in the movie Idiocracy) that has been so carefully engineered by the TPTB through poor education. Probably to ensure that people in general are too stupid and distracted to be any kind of threat.

This 'genius' has only one gift, to directly/indirectly make money from their gullible followers. Generating Internet traffic generates money, I have often thought how easy it would be to do something like JW and the others like him, luckily I have standards. He's sought after on websites as he's a traffic generator, people who see that much money potential don't care about ethics! I guarantee he's making a nice little earner on the side with all of this. Just an unavoidable side effect of getting the truth out of course

Not a single point in his videos is new or unexplainable. His arguments are flawed and I'm sure he knows this. He simply preys on people who are so desperate to not believe anything official that they will accuse everything of being a lie. The topic of the moon landings has been discussed in FAR more technical detail at length not just on other forums but here on ATS too, only the modern video watching generation seem incapable of searching and reading and if it's not presented to them with a neatly packaged bow they arn't interested. This isn't there fault, simply 'progress' and the sort of attitude that's heavily promoted these days.
It's also blatantly clear that everyone who follows these types of videos literally has no scientific or technical knowledge whatsoever. They argue parrot style using the arguments raised in the video and as soon as someone with actual knowledge of the topic or the principles gets involved they falter, get confused and try to deviate.
If it wasn't for the fact it would be irresponsible to not try and educate these people, I would say it was a waste of time as their minds are made up and they will, quite literally, sit there with there fingers in their ears shouting 'lalalalala' if you push them hard enough.
People like JW are a menace to society, they are out for themselves only and nothing else. Not only do they help dumb down others, but they also give true conspiracy theorists and anyone with an 'alternative view' a bad name. It's just so sad that so many people are too busy ignoring what they are taught in school to see through what are usually painfully obvious flawed arguments.
All I can say to anyone that believes this rubbish: Please, please, please try to read and learn, don't just watch this rubbish and think it must be true because it's against the authorities.
By encouraging this sort of thing it simply makes us all look like a bunch of idiots in the eyes of others.
It's things like this that makes it difficult for our voices to be heard when we have something important for people to hear.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join