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: 549
377
<< 546  547  548    550  551  552 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Lets try this again....

Looks like Jarrah White was quite busy giving interviews back in 2008-2009 about the MOON HOAX.


www.youtube.com.../c/7F66F84BF806D06C


www.youtube.com.../c/1B7A6AA901585E73/5/6astfp8YDXg


www.youtube.com.../c/090537742B029E43

The interviewers come up with good points.
The suspicion about the landings are running deep.

And the LRO photos have not helped NASA in this regard, actually, it might have made it worse for those on the fence about the issue.

Why didnt the Soviets simply landed on the moon for their own propaganda purposes?
So what if they were second, there were plenty of discoveries still to be made. And any missions to Mars or Venus would have been made easier using a moon base.

Why did Apollo end right around the time when Vietnam ended? Why didnt the US further push into space for (at least) propaganda purposes?




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why did Apollo end right around the time when Vietnam ended? Why didnt the US further push into space for (at least) propaganda purposes?


After all, it was all fake, right? It would be easy to fake dozens more missions. Heck, they could pretend to build a moonbase and broadcast reality TV shows from it! Right? So why didn't they do that, FoosM? Wouldn't that have distracted people from Watergate? We all know what a manipulative liar Tricky Dick was. He would have been all over the fake space program. So? If it was fake, why did they stop?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I tell you what. Take the same photo:
AS17-141-21608

And indicate with arrows which direction the shadows should fall:
The Astronaut
The Rocks
The Boulder
It should be easy because there was one light source.

Then we can compare the photos and see where I may have made a mistake.


We've been through all this before, of course. Courtesy wmd_2008:




Red to link object and shadow
Blue to show direction of slope.

What you claim as no shadow for leg can't be seen because of slope.

Multiple light sources GIVE multiple shadows to EACH OBJECT were you asleep
a few pages back.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I tell you what. Take the same photo:
AS17-141-21608

And indicate with arrows which direction the shadows should fall:
The Astronaut
The Rocks
The Boulder
It should be easy because there was one light source.

Then we can compare the photos and see where I may have made a mistake.


We've been through all this before, of course. Courtesy wmd_2008:

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Red to link object and shadow
Blue to show direction of slope.

What you claim as no shadow for leg can't be seen because of slope.


Well he didnt finish, and he didnt show where my arrows were wrong.
You want to point it out?


edit on 24-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why did Apollo end right around the time when Vietnam ended? Why didnt the US further push into space for (at least) propaganda purposes?


After all, it was all fake, right? It would be easy to fake dozens more missions. Heck, they could pretend to build a moonbase and broadcast reality TV shows from it! Right? So why didn't they do that, FoosM? Wouldn't that have distracted people from Watergate? We all know what a manipulative liar Tricky Dick was. He would have been all over the fake space program. So? If it was fake, why did they stop?


Well technology available outside of NASA and the military definitely increased rapidly in the early 70's.
It may have been harder to fool the masses..
I know in the late 60's not every house in Australia had a phone and a fridge, let alone a TV and certainly not color..



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why did Apollo end right around the time when Vietnam ended? Why didnt the US further push into space for (at least) propaganda purposes?


After all, it was all fake, right? It would be easy to fake dozens more missions. Heck, they could pretend to build a moonbase and broadcast reality TV shows from it! Right? So why didn't they do that, FoosM? Wouldn't that have distracted people from Watergate? We all know what a manipulative liar Tricky Dick was. He would have been all over the fake space program. So? If it was fake, why did they stop?


Well technology available outside of NASA and the military definitely increased rapidly in the early 70's.
It may have been harder to fool the masses..
I know in the late 60's not every house in Australia had a phone and a fridge, let alone a TV and certainly not color..


Exactly, and this is why in this day and age it makes it even harder to fake due to the internet.


edit on 24-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Tells me that if people had access to the internet back in the 60's - 70's the moon landing would have been debated from day 1. And these debates would have spilled over to discussions in academia and political circles world wide.


People didn't have access to the internet in the 1960's because it didn't exist yet. Instead, we had newspapers, journals, magazines, telephone, radio and even a medium called television. Plus, people actually tended to talk or write to each other in those days. The space program WAS the subject of constant debate. Please do some research before you start speculating about things that people you're debating with actually participated in.Liberals thought the money would be better spent on social programs. Conservatives thought it was just expensive pork. Scientists claimed that it was more about building bigger rockets than doing good science, etc, etc, etc! Oh, wait... did you mean to imply that people would debate whether the gigantic rockets they saw blasting into space on a weekly basis were real?!?!


There would have been more of a push to include third parties (possibly instruments made by other countries to verify for scientific purposes and to verify the missions) & generally for independent scientists to be more closely involved in the moon landing as this was discussed earlier:


Why? The Russkies watched the US space program like a hawk. They had "trawlers" observing every manned launch, monitored the transmissions from their own earth stations, photographed the orbiting craft as they passed over Cuba (oops... I'm not sure if I should say that) and watched them through telescopes on the way to the Moon. Why make the KGB's job any easier?

As for "independent" scientists getting involved... it's funny, but every time an independent scientist from Stanford or MIT or Harvard starts working with data from NASA, you suddenly classify him as "tainted," and refuse to believe what he or she says anyway!



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well he didnt finish, and he didnt show where my arrows were wrong.
You want to point it out?


I would love to, but you have never explained what all those arrows are supposed to mean. Explain them first, and I'll tell you what you got wrong.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well technology available outside of NASA and the military definitely increased rapidly in the early 70's.
It may have been harder to fool the masses..


So imagine how much further technology advanced within NASA and the military! Star Wars opened in 1977. Surely NASA could have maintained the hoax if they wanted to. As for fooling the masses, just because people suddenly had color television doesn't make them any smarter.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



As for "independent" scientists getting involved... it's funny, but every time an independent scientist from Stanford or MIT or Harvard starts working with data from NASA, you suddenly classify him as "tainted," and refuse to believe what he or she says anyway!


How are they independent scientists if they are not conducting the project themselves and instead merely analyzing results given to them by NASA as you say.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well technology available outside of NASA and the military definitely increased rapidly in the early 70's.
It may have been harder to fool the masses..


So imagine how much further technology advanced within NASA and the military! Star Wars opened in 1977. Surely NASA could have maintained the hoax if they wanted to. As for fooling the masses, just because people suddenly had color television doesn't make them any smarter.


No, but they see more details..
Certainly better than the original BS NASA feed us, filming a screen and then transmitting that..

Yes, I watched it live in grade 6.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Exactly, and this is why in this day and age it makes it even hard to fake in this day and age due to the internet.


Wow, you really need to visit some other threads here from time to time. The internet has been an absolute boon to hoaxers, Jarrah especially. There are people who believe that a brown dwarf star disguised as a comet is about to hit the Earth because they saw it on the internet. There are people who think that the Chinese launched a missile off the coast of California because they saw it on the internet. There are people who think that the US Navy Space Command can travel through space at hundreds of times the speed of light because they saw it on the internet.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



How are they independent scientists if they are not conducting the project themselves and instead merely analyzing results given to them by NASA as you say.


Because their affiliation is with other institutions. They designed experiments and submitted them to NASA. NASA then selected them and ran them. The scientists weren't paid by NASA, they were independent. If NASA faked the data, the scientists would be suspicious.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



There are people who think that the Chinese launched a missile off the coast of California because they saw it on the internet.


Never verified to be a plane..
Strike one....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Well he didnt finish, and he didnt show where my arrows were wrong.
You want to point it out?


I would love to, but you have never explained what all those arrows are supposed to mean. Explain them first, and I'll tell you what you got wrong.


You guys got my picture from my original post where it was all explained.
So... have at it.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Bah, we went to the Moon. NASA isn't lying about going to the moon, there lying about what they saw and learned up there. In my opinion, any fake footage or photos is because very little of what they actually shot up there could be released to the public and while it would be monumentally hard to fake the journey there in whole, would be very easy to fake videos and pictures seeing that they already had a studio to do just that and a guy like Stanley Kubrick around.....
edit on 24-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



No, but they see more details..
Certainly better than the original BS NASA feed us, filming a screen and then transmitting that..


Are you saying that Star Wars doesn't look good on a color TV? That it doesn't have enough details? Don't you think that if NASA wanted to fake the TV transmissions, they could have done a better job of it? The picture quality of the transmissions improved because the quality of the television equipment they were able to send to the Moon improved.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



How are they independent scientists if they are not conducting the project themselves and instead merely analyzing results given to them by NASA as you say.


Because their affiliation is with other institutions. They designed experiments and submitted them to NASA. NASA then selected them and ran them. The scientists weren't paid by NASA, they were independent. If NASA faked the data, the scientists would be suspicious.


Mate that's crap..
Maybe NASA are just good at faking data..

The "so called" independent scientists still did NOT conduct the experiments/project so the data is still just NASA data..



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



As for "independent" scientists getting involved... it's funny, but every time an independent scientist from Stanford or MIT or Harvard starts working with data from NASA, you suddenly classify him as "tainted," and refuse to believe what he or she says anyway!


How are they independent scientists if they are not conducting the project themselves and instead merely analyzing results given to them by NASA as you say.


Not only that but we know how closely MIT, for example, worked with NASA on Apollo.
I dont think anyone at MIT would dare suggest it was faked.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Bah, we went to the Moon. NASA isn't lying about going to the moon, there lying about what they saw and learned up there. In my opinion, any fake footage or photos is because very little of what they actually shot up there could be released to the public and while it would be monumentally hard to fake the journey there in whole, would be very easy to fake videos and pictures seeing that they already had a studio to do just that and a guy like Stanley Kubrick around.....
edit on 24-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)


If the photos and videos were faked, then whats left to prove they actually landed men to the moon?
For that matter, how do we know that they didnt tried to send men to the moon secretly and that they died on the way there?

edit on 24-8-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
377
<< 546  547  548    550  551  552 >>

log in

join