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: 515
377
<< 512  513  514    516  517  518 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

I didn't know "so much" could be so quantified. But in what way has the main point been dispelled ? Why shoot any film or video of actions or items that could later be used to uncover your hoaxery ?




-(Wow)


Like you really cant figure out why it was necessary for NASA to provide photo and video evidence for the hoax?
Really? And you frequent ATS?




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

I didn't know "so much" could be so quantified. But in what way has the main point been dispelled ? Why shoot any film or video of actions or items that could later be used to uncover your hoaxery ?


-(Wow)

Like you really cant figure out why it was necessary for NASA to provide photo and video evidence for the hoax?
Really? And you frequent ATS?


Where did I say they shouldn't provide any evidence ? Assuming it was a hoax, there would be no need to provide superfluous "evidence", like a video of the Earth from within the CSM. Do you think people back then were going to question the veracity of the Moon missions ? No they weren't. The "evidence" could have been much simpler and less prone to error. That's what I would have done to sell the hoax. Yet we have hours of video and film that the general public never cared to watch. Why take the chance some sharp eyed detail freak would find a mistake in your continuity ?

BTW nice try at erecting another strawman ...



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 
Although requiring additional authentication ( such as an easy connection for reviewers to see the original weather satellite data, and to compare images before and after the one used to ensure plausible continuity from one "frame" to another ) the weather footprints from the two different sources to me looked like a reasonable match. I found other elements of the presentation weaker; more like window dressing around the weather footprint evidence. Putting down those who are in disagreement with the "official" version, and bringing in Van Allen as a supposedly impartial and credible witness added little in terms of useful content. The commentary on the capsule footage was interesting and relevant ( brought up some good points ), but would have been better put forward as a strong interpretation of what was going on rather than purporting to be "conclusive" evidence that tampering was impossible.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 

Most conspiracy theories require the baddies to actively increase complexity of their plans, so when they pull it off, no one would believe everyone could fake all of it. Of course, not even HBs are usually willing to collect all their "evidence", or present a comprehensive theory of the crime.


Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.
That is nearly the exact definition of an Argument from Ignorance.


Originally posted by bansheegirlbringing in Van Allen as a supposedly impartial and credible witness added little in terms of useful content.
1. Implication that Van Allen is not an impartial and credible witness.
2. HBs constantly talk about how the radiation would've killed the astronauts. If the man who discovered the Van Allen Belts, who is a radiation expert and physicist, isn't "credible" in his opinion that the astronauts would've been fine, who is? Remember, he's backed up by, oh, pretty much every radiation expert who's ever looked at those exposures, ever.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 
I didn't intend that to sound like i have specific about Van Allen's impartiality, credibility, or competence. Not knowing much about him one way or the other I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is partial, credible and competent. The point I was trying to make ( and I apologize to Dr. Van Allen for it appearing to be otherwise ) is that the strategy of employing a "celebrity" witness neither adds nor detracts from the value of the points being made. I would love to hear Dr. Van Allen's detailed explanation of why he considers the radiation threat to be a non-issue, and that explanation would have to be considered as having considerable research behind it ... however an image of Van Allen saying it is all safe and good is not an explanation, but an opinion. For all we know Van Allen had concerns but was quite satisfied that the fact of passing through the belts and the radiation dose readings returned in the process, ( which he may well have accepted unquestioningly as authentic ), were more than sufficient to allay those concerns. At this point he may have ceased looking for any evidence to the contrary. I am not saying that this is the case, or that the belts are impassable, merely pointing out that the specific extract from the film adds nothing to the credibility of the overall argument ... and appeared to be window dressing around the evidence presented as the incontrovertible "smoking gun', namely the matching weather fingerprint pattern between the Apollo 11 footage and the independent ATS photos.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bansheegirl
 
That should be "that I have specific CONCERNS about his impartiality ...:



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
... or present a comprehensive theory of the crime.


Now that would be nice wouldn't it ? The problem then is that it could be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that the Moon landings are. And I don't see it faring such a close look very well. Heck, they can't even come up with a consistent theory of how all the video shot on the Moon was done. All we get is some handwaving about wires and slowed down speeds (is it 50% or 66.6% ?) and sometimes the "set" is evacuated, except when that would require too large a set and then it's not. The "dirt" used is some fine grained powder to make footprints except when it's being flung off of tires ... then it's something like heavy sand so it doesn't billow.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 
Fair point. However it is also true that you are comparing a construction, namely the Apollo moon landing fact ont he one hand, or the Apollo moon landing fiction on the other, with a reconstruction, namely the official compiled story of how the moon landing was engineered, or alternately the extrapolation, in detail of the method by which it was faked. You are right in as far as responding to individual points made by those questioning the official record generally happens without a properly comprehensive framework within which that specific point presented by the skeptic is embedded; a task which would provide much more context for intelligent debate. A partial explanation may be that the skeptics are often testing out various perceived inconsistencies to see if they hold up to scrutiny. The hope might be to build up sufficient irrefutable inconsistencies ( this should not be equated with proof of fakery ) upon which to base a more comprehensive reconstruction. As this thread is about Mr. White's theories it should be mentioned to his credit that compiling an extensive body of, by him perceived inconsistencies, in a single voice and hand, is indeed a start ( a work in progress if you will ) towards constructing the sort of overarching reconstruction that you rightly point out is currently lacking.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It's been years since he started, and over 40 years since Apollo 11. He has over 500 videos. He or anyone should have more than enough for a working theory. However, the HBs are content to merely nitpick at small anomalies, and tend to be logically inconsistent, such as saying the landings can't be proven either way at one point in a debate, and saying that "the anomalies" prove said landings were faked a few pages later.

That's not a hypothetical. That has actually happened in this thread. Certain HBs are willing to take any position no matter how tortured the logic as long as they don't have to admit they're wrong. That's not real skepticism.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 
True enough. By skeptics I was broadly including those who do not believe the official version of events, as well as those who doubt that the official record is correct and are seeking the truth of the matter. One valid method towards that is to assume the landings were faked, and to then work backwards to determine how, and what evidence exists that it was. I would consider a true skeptic ( i.e. the most narrow usage of that term ) as one who does not believe something to be true simply because it is stated to be true, and who given the chance to examine evidence about the matter chooses to decide their position based on the merits of the evidence. GIven additional evidence, or additional insight into the original evidence, their position may of course change.

I would caution against stating that the quantity of Mr.White's videos presumes that he would be able to reconstruct the moon landing hoax, had it occurred. Quantity is a very poor measure. A more useful position would be to ask what, according to him, is his best guess so far of how it was done ... then to judge that on its own merits.




is a valid threshold for determining threshold between being able to formulate an overarching hypothesis or not. I have seen only a



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bansheegirl
 
That last garbled bit may be safely ignored.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
... and tend to be logically inconsistent, such as saying the landings can't be proven either way at one point in a debate, and saying that "the anomalies" prove said landings were faked a few pages later.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bansheegirl
 
It is true that where that occurs it is inconsistent. I suspect most "anomalies" fall into the former category of not proving the landing one way or the other. I suspect few fall into the category of casting strong doubt on the official record. On the other side I do see people posting here jumping very quickly to the assumption that a given official record supports an item when in fact it does not. There has been a reluctance to state "I can't actually explain that ... here are the strongest theories we have, but none of them quite dispels the doubt that's been raised. Posturing is certainly rampant, but fortunately good discussion is also well represented.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
reply to post by 000063
 
True enough. By skeptics I was broadly including those who do not believe the official version of events, as well as those who doubt that the official record is correct and are seeking the truth of the matter.
This is technically correct, but skepticism isn't just doubt. It's an entire system of logical enquiry, one that looks at all sides of the story in a consistent manner.


One valid method towards that is to assume the landings were faked, and to then work backwards to determine how, and what evidence exists that it was.
No.

That is called "Begging the Question", or "Affirming the Consequent", and it leads to missing or ignoring evidence verifying the landings. A skeptic starts with the premise that the landings may have been faked. This leads directly to the possibility that they may not have been faked. Then you start looking at the evidence, and see which supports each possibility.


I would consider a true skeptic ( i.e. the most narrow usage of that term ) as one who does not believe something to be true simply because it is stated to be true, and who given the chance to examine evidence about the matter chooses to decide their position based on the merits of the evidence. GIven additional evidence, or additional insight into the original evidence, their position may of course change.
Problem is, certain people will refuse to change their viewpoints, despite their avowed skepticism. I've seen a self-proclaimed skeptic cite as evidence the fact that he wouldn't like to poop in a bag. Not the astronauts, mind you. His argument was that he wouldn't do it, therefore the astronauts wouldn't.


I would caution against stating that the quantity of Mr.White's videos presumes that he would be able to reconstruct the moon landing hoax, had it occurred. Quantity is a very poor measure. A more useful position would be to ask what, according to him, is his best guess so far of how it was done ... then to judge that on its own merits.
I don't think he actually has one. Like most conspiracy theorists, it's all about the "anomalies", because the second they're put in context, they tend to start looking silly, and the amount of things that the conspiracy theory can't explain causes it to collapse under its own weight.

Certainly, Jarrah isn't exactly honest, as indicated by the fact that he cited the unshielded exposure of the astronauts as being the same as the one they would've received behind shielding. He even posted the quote in one of his videos, and highlighted a section, including the part where it says the figures described are without shielding. That's either incompetence, willful deception, or both. And I don't think he's ever corrected himself.


is a valid threshold for determining threshold between being able to formulate an overarching hypothesis or not. I have seen only a
The problem is hoax believers in general, not just Jarrah, have been unwilling for formulate an overarching hypothesis for over forty years now.

There's nothing wrong with having to correct a theory, but I believe HBs are so afraid of the self-defeating theory that I mentioned earlier that they refuse to form a theory in the first place. Some become so afraid of actually presenting facts that they are nigh-incapable of responding to direct questions, even when the facts in question would actually help their side.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
reply to post by bansheegirl
 
It is true that where that occurs it is inconsistent. I suspect most "anomalies" fall into the former category of not proving the landing one way or the other. I suspect few fall into the category of casting strong doubt on the official record. On the other side I do see people posting here jumping very quickly to the assumption that a given official record supports an item when in fact it does not. There has been a reluctance to state "I can't actually explain that ...
I've noticed an unwillingness on the part of one HB to admit he doesn't know anything at all. He is, apparently, capable of just looking at things that scientists with years of experience under their belts take careful analysis to understand, and to declare that it "looks wrong". So strong is this intuition, in fact, that he can't even post facts which support his claim. His fields of nigh-savantlike expertise include astral photography, mechanical engineering, hygiene, dietary needs, geoengineering, and the politics of the Cold War. In fact, I've asked him why he can't admit Jarrah is wrong about anything--which, statistically, he has to be, and has been proven to be several times--and I've never gotten an answer.


here are the strongest theories we have, but none of them quite dispels the doubt that's been raised. Posturing is certainly rampant, but fortunately good discussion is also well represented.
You already admitted you're working backwards from a conclusion. Why not examine each piece of evidence, throw it into a metaphorical pile marked "HOAX" or "REAL", and see which pile's bigger?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 
I will consider your points. They seem sensible. I will disagree with your characterization of Mr. White ( on the grounds that I suspect a milder explanation is in order for the discrepancies you perceive ) but will review the shielded / unshielded evidence again so as to be better informed.

Twice now you have put weight on how much time has elapsed since the landing. I will reaffirm that I consider quantity a poor measure for drawing conclusions. A couple of examples may suffice to show why. It has been mentioned a few times in this post, and I believe rightly so, that there may be reluctance to explore the matter ( one way or the other ) while the astronauts involved in the mission still live, and while relations live who would suffer directly if those astronauts were discredited, or even dragged through a pointless discussion that ends up proving the moon landings actually happened. Also one would expect discriminations of discrepancies to build over time, not be equally apparent closer to the actual or purported events. One would expect a snowball effect of sorts and it can be hard to predict where on such a curve one is sitting.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 
I may have expressed myself poorly, or you may be misreading my context, but I never claimed I was working backwards from a conclusion.

I talked about my use of the term skeptic, and stated my use ( of the term in its broader sense ) includes those who use this approach. I also characterized it as a valid approach ( a approach ... one of many, and not specifically mine. For the record I believe working backwards from a conclusion to see where it takes you can be a valid form of inquiry, but I shall consider your points on that matter and am open to being shown wrong. Regardless it is not the main approach I employ, though on occasion I certainly have, and always with regard to a specific piece of evidence. For evidence A let us conclude definitively that a hoax has occurred. Given that, what do we see. Let us also switch viewpoints and conclude definitively that we are examining the record of a factual event. There follow several shades of gray involving misunderstandings, misrepresentations in error, and misrepresentations due to a vested interest, all of which can be tried on by assuming them to be definitively true.

Your point about intuition is a good one, and I think it is at the crux of why this is such a wobbly debate. I think it applies equally on the science side as the wishful thinking side. We have a poor intuition about how things behave in a vacuum or under conditions of weightlessness or reduced gravity, or under light conditions outside the normal terrestrial range. There is some truly tricksy stuff, including the particular effect that causes the moon as seen from the earth to appear larger, or more uniformly lit than one would expect.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
why is apollo 10 never mentioned in these threads ? I have a thoery.

It is never mentioned because it is not considered a part of the moon landings, mankinds most significant technical accomplishment, therefore there is no emotional bump gained from debunking it, because it is not considered part of a great accomplishment. Apollo 10 got to within 8 miles of the moon but didn't land. the HB's never ever ever bring it up. never

I mean that's the core of the story, isn't it ? nobody has ever questioned if the russians put a mirror up there, or a probe so the only issue has ever been there were no MANNED landings

why ?

is it emotionally important for the HB's to try to deny this accomplishment ? it's all very weird to me



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The suspicious fire that killed Grissom, White and Chaffey combined with the obvious hit on Thomas Baron and his family stinks of a cover up.
The ten astronauts that died from "freak accidents" from 1964 to 1967 should be proof enough for any rational person the lengths to which the cover up went.
These men, murdered by those they served are the true heroes! Not these fakes paraded around by TPTB, liars!



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 512  513  514    516  517  518 >>

log in

join