Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And what do we do here on ATS? We seek to deny ignorance. Anybody looking forward to Apollo 18?

I don't think I'll live that long..

What niggles me about the Moon landings is, if Apollo 13 would have completed it`s journey and landed on the Moon.
That would have made it THREE Moon landings in less than 10 months.
I just find that amazing for NASA to be able to do that in that Era.

The only people who could possibly testify that the moon landings happened for real are the astronauts themselves. The ground controllers at mission control could not testify... (where is that quote someone said that the ground controllers would never know if it was a simulation or not)

The NASA techs who bolted the astronauts into Apollo capsules could not testify either. The Navy frogmen could not testify...

Everything else seems quite circumstantial.... moon rocks (improperly inventoried for 5 years and the rocks might have been picked from Antarctica)... photos (every single one of them cleared by American intelligence at Langley) ... telemetry tapes (which were easily destroyed)... 3rd party radio intercepts and telescope "sightings"... all these are circumstantial evidence.

We could divide up all this circumstantial evidence and have experts pour over it (like they have done for 42 years) and these experts STILL could not testify that the astronauts really walked on the moon. Because they weren't there when it happened. All we will ever have is circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the astronauts.... the books, the interviews, the appearances...

Jarrah White has taken all this circumstantial evidence (and the inquiries of his predecessors) into his videos and provided his interpretations to it. Joe Rogan uses every single one of these interpretations in his radio debate with Phil Plait, and he, the biggest, baddest 'Bad Astronomer' (he who is funded by a media conglomerate) on the internet was left grasping at straws after his rote answers were dutifully scrubbed by Rogan.

This Apollo cheerleading by the mainstream is still no more than a repetition of circumstantial evidence which is open to debate and interpretation. It cannot be a closed debate because we are still unravelling the past in an attempt to figure out what we have done. We get this situation all the time were "new documents are released" by the media (the watchdog & the gate keeper of important secrets and lies)

The people who do this kind of propaganda have no qualms about telling you stories of dead babies and making you cry. Or telling you that a couple of gun boats posed a grave threat to US national security. They only weight the consequences when the propaganda fails, as Vietnam failed. They just keep telling lies... until they get caught. And in such an instance of getting caught they'll tell another lie on top of more lies.... like destroying the evidence or "enhancing" the videos.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

And what do we do here on ATS? We seek to deny ignorance. Anybody looking forward to Apollo 18?

I don't think I'll live that long..

September 2nd! Stay with us buddy *DON'T GO INTO THE LIGHT*

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The only people who could possibly testify that the moon landings happened for real are the astronauts themselves. The ground controllers at mission control could not testify... (where is that quote someone said that the ground controllers would never know if it was a simulation or not)

This one?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ead4a457aab5.jpg[/atsimg]


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.

From this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And you guys who are skeptical of Apollo - maybe they seen you coming, and planted little quotes like this throughout the script:

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/2/apollo14plasterofparis.jpg/][/URL ]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

But you would quicker believe that 1960's technology could take us to the moon

We also have a long history of rocketry.

Pretty expensive special effect, don't you think?

Witnessing a launch is circumstantial evidence and does not equate to witnessing a trip to the moon. Only the astronauts can testify to that. Enter the new paradigm DJ. You going to Apollo 18?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The only people who could possibly testify that the moon landings happened for real are the astronauts themselves. The ground controllers at mission control could not testify... (where is that quote someone said that the ground controllers would never know if it was a simulation or not)

This one?

That's not the one I was thinking of... there was another one... I think it was someone higher up than Frank Byrne. Thanks for the reminder on that one!

Originally posted by dpd11
No, they could have been faked... Which is of course what you're saying, and what people who believe this stuff say, anytime they come up against proof of the landings. 'Everybody is in on it... Everything is faked... And everything is a lie'. That doesn't mean any of it actually is of course, but it;s a great way to erase all evidence in the mind of conspiracy believers... Simply say something and it becomes true. Would you say that I couldn't have a pet bear that rides a unicycle?

Wow that's a bit of fallacy right there. Skeptical open-minded Apollo investigators don't say that at all. I won't speak for all Apollo skeptics but just myself.

I say: A few people were in on it (the astronauts, the ex-Nazi's, Nixon, DoD and the CIA.)
I say: Some of Apollo material (photos, moon rocks and lazer reflectors, radiation data :lol is circumstantial and deserves to be re-evaluated because the exceptional claims made by NASA about this material are subject to much greater scrutiny - simply because they are *exceptional* claims.
I say: Not everything is a lie because that would defeat the intended purpse of the propaganda. Ever heard of plausible deniability? There MUST be some shreds of truth to begin with; DJ's rocket launch example.

If you examine how propaganda works there is always some truth in the bigger lie. Like Gulf of Tonkin. Yes a gun boat attach may have taken place but the USA was never in grave danger.

NASA published material about Apollo is self-published, a self-proving source that supports their own *exceptional* claims. I apply the techniques of logic and reason and rhetoric to evaluate these *exceptional* claims.

And then NASA destroyed the telemetry tapes closely followed by an urgent program to "digitally enhance" only those specific videos that have the 'emotional gravity' to maintain the lie. Just enough worm to keep you nibbling on that bait... like the LRO corroborations which are basically unverifieable AGAIN because it comes from the same source that is making the original claim... NASA.

All it would take is one misjudged movement,,, just one pointy rock in the right place at the right time,,, and one or more of those astronauts would still be up there. Yet these astronauts are recklessly driving the rover and recklessly not using their visors.... they frequently dance around their equipment like nothing can kill them.

What was exciting for TV audiences might simply have been simulator shenanigans for those who were involved in concocting the Myth of
Apollo.

Put some pictures on the cover of Life magazine (Lee Harvey Oswald, for example) and then it's VERY hard to convince the average citizen that LHO *didn't* shoot Kennedy. You have a WINNING propaganda piece.

Cui Bono? Nixon. NASA. ex-Nazis. America. Democracy. Military Industrial Complex. There are a lot of winners here and a lot of possible players. But it only takes a few determined men to manipulate the course of history.

Take the whole worm... and then you get hooked... and then you start fighting but it's to no avail All the experts are on board and you'll look silly in 1969 if you said we didn't land on the moon. There are so many factors all leading up to this successful and wizardly fantasy story that people get hooked and they don't care because - in the end - these guys pulled it off for 42 years.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Almost too easy.... why did so many come back from Viet Nam messed up? It was because of the lies of LBJ and his congressional chorus!

That's right, it was the fact of being lied to, not the constant danger and senseless bloodshed.

The messed up veterans saw with their own eyes. Taking hills that meant nothing a few days later. The military victories never added up to a political win. No matter how many times they carpet bombed.

So you admit it wasn't the lies after all.

This was the propaganda of fighting Communism to keep the world safe by killing poor people.

The Vietnam war was not propaganda, it was an actual war. The objective was not to kill poor people, but rather to "contain" a perceived threat. As it turns out, that perception may have been wrong, but it was sincere.

Communism itself is normally sold to poor people who are willing to fight to bring themselves a better society.

Historically, "communism" has always been imposed upon the people by a small, violent elite.

But Apollo was a different kind of propaganda. It was Disney and Hollywood and the spectacle of waving American flags on the Moon. America was torn up in the 1960's - everyone acknowledges this fact.

Not really; only a small minority of young people considered themselves "revolutionaries." There was political disagreement among the grown-ups, of course... but then, a lot of people objected to entering the war in Europe decades earlier. That's the thing about a democracy, people are allowed to form and express their own opinions. During precisely the same time frame, France was experiencing a much graver crisis. It had nothing to do with Walt Disney or Vietnam. Oh yes, and let's not forget the "Prague Spring!" What was going on? You are obviously well educated, so I assume that you are aware that the 1960's were the decade that the global economy finally recovered from the Great Depression and the privations of the Second World War. Might this have something to do with it?

A simple program of propaganda would start out with shocking the population with high profile assassinations, followed by a massive campaign of external threats, using the media to divide the population into left & right.

Towards what end? Please, be specific if you are going to speculate like this. Also, what makes you think that a series of high profile assassinations would be "simple?" Do you have experience in this area?

And after a decade of intensity then you give the people a moon rock and they'll forgive everything that just happened.

Which is why there is no longer any political conflict in the US? Do you pay any attention to reality at all? Why would people "forgive" everything because of a few rocks. You have not made a case that justifies your hypothetical "propaganda" and now you are trying to tie it in to the Apollo program in a way that runs contrary to reality.

And it is obligatory to mention the fact that the Communists were demonized as being 'god-less' while our astronauts were reading Bible verses from the Moon... the religious aspect was also an easy victory for the Apollo conspiracy

The communists were easy to "demonize" as being "godless" because they themselves believed they were atheists! In fact, communism was a secular religion, founded entirely on unquestioning acceptance of political and economic dogma. Historical Dialectic was their deity, Marx and Lenin their saints, the COMINTERN their Vatican. Just because one mission commander decided to read some poetry drawn from the best selling book in the English language to convey his profound sense of awe at his experience does not mean that the entire space program was designed to further a religious agenda; quite the opposite, the most fervent "Moon Hoax" proponents generally hold narrow fundamentalist beliefs. The Apollo program pretty much proved that the cosmos described in the Old Testament is completely, utterly wrong!

Because American's believe anything that makes them feel righteous against an enemy. That is EXACTLY how propaganda works... making those subjected to it believe without ever questioning.

Are you implying that this is exclusively a fault in the American psyche? That Germans marched off to their wars of conquest feeling guilty because they knew their leaders were evil? That soviet spies did what they did for the pleasure of it, not to liberate the masses? That hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians slaughtered each other out of profound nihilism?

You are correct, propaganda does appeal to the prejudices of its intended market in order to convince them of things that may not be true. This is why you hammer away at America, for example, knowing that Moon Hoax believers, when not religious fanatics, tend to hold anti-american sentiments. By waving the anti-american flag, the lack of logic in your position is completely overlooked by those who want to believe.

So I ask you: why would anyone embark on a "simple" propaganda campaign involving public assassinations, a deliberate attempt to roil the body politic and an expensive space program? If these were means, what was the end? If you cannot answer that question, what you are doing is not simply speculation, it is pure propaganda.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I say: A few people were in on it (the astronauts, the ex-Nazi's, Nixon, DoD and the CIA.)
I say: Some of Apollo material (photos, moon rocks and lazer reflectors, radiation data :lol is circumstantial and deserves to be re-evaluated because the exceptional claims made by NASA about

Yes, you say but you do not do. All you do is keep popping up and using tired cliches to "deconstruct" historical events without doing any sort of actual research. You are obviously intelligent enough to understand what you are doing. Why do you do it? What is your agenda? Don't tell me it's in pursuit of truth... if you really believe your solopsistic rhetoric you do not believe even in the possibility of "truth!"

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Isn't it shameful that some people are so unAmerican that they'll use almost any reason to say the USA couldn't have faked a few moon landings?

The USA landed men on the moon right? I'm pretty sure they could have convinced a large segment of the earth's population that they went. But it seems some people want too poo poo America so bad, they'll deny we could even fake it.

I'm glad Jarrah White is debunking this harmful propaganda.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Yeah a long history of special effects indeed. From the times of the silent movies. However it's in no way capable of removing wires and rigs. No green screen capability of such kind excisted. In order to do that you need powerfull cgi. Even these days special effects suck when compared to apollo footage. Lately it has gotten better but up untill powerfull computers and advanced cgi were invented it would've been pretty ridicilous to even try.

edit on 27/8/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

CGI ? What are you kidding me? Dude, blue screen was used back prior to the 1940's.
The shots used in Apollo were minimalistic, and the picture quality was horrible.
And plus, guess who first used CGI and would have had access to it prior to it first being used for
movies in the early '70s? The Military and Aerospace industry, in other words NASA.

I never said that it didn't excist. I said it didn't excist in the level required for faking the footages + photos. Crucial difference. Consider continous shots without editing and changes of angles to boot.

reply to post by FoosM

CGI ? What are you kidding me? Dude, blue screen was used back prior to the 1940's.
The shots used in Apollo were minimalistic, and the picture quality was horrible.

Horrible? I guess you haven't seen this yet:

Originally posted by Exuberant1
And you guys who are skeptical of Apollo - maybe they seen you coming, and planted little quotes like this throughout the script:

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/2/apollo14plasterofparis.jpg/]

[/URL ]

edit on 28-8-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Here is the CBS archived footage from Apollo 14 news reports from CBS February 1st - 3d. wherein astronaut Edgar Mitchell makes his quotation about the moon surface looking like plastic of paris... it is toward the end of this youtube video at 8:45.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/81eb50b57bfe.jpg[/atsimg]

- Edgar Mitchell while orbiting the moon (being only the sixth person to walk on the Moon.)



Deny Ignorance. Apollo cheerleaders are going to LOOOOOOOVE THIS

By Terry Baynes | Reuters – Thu, Jun 30, 2011. On June 29, 2011, the United States Government filed a lawsuit against Mitchell in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida after discovering that he possessed a camera used by the Apollo 14 crew on the moon, and had put the camera up for auction at the British auction house Bonhams. The litigation asks that the camera be returned to NASA. Mitchell's position is that NASA had given him the camera as a gift upon the completion of the Apollo 14 mission. Bonhams has withdrawn the camera from auction pending the resolution of the litigation.

Source Reuters via Yahoo News news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And comparing the appearance of the Moon's surface to plaster of paris is some how evidence of a hoax? People make comparisons to familiar things all the time when trying to describe something to some one who hasn't / isn't seeing it.

As for Mitchell trying to sell his camera. What does an ownership dispute have to do with the supposed Apollo hoax? I don't understand what point you're attempting to make with this.

reply to post by jra


Because a lot of times people (not saying you) merely skim over the executive summary of a topic like browsing through a rack of magazines at the book store but I like to dig deeper.

FoosM posted in this thread about Mitchell's Camera back on page 511. Thanks FoosM... you are always on the game.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I actually found out about Mitchell's Camera just today when I was reading some A14 pdf transcripts for the plaster of paris quotes. Then I quickly went to the search function here on ATS and find 2 threads about it. Well those threads kind of both died out. That's when I found FoosM had already made a post about it. However, nobody seemed to want to discuss Mitchell's Camera in this thread at that time. But I *do*!

FoosM One Camera, two camera, three camera, four.... How many cameras were left on the lunar floor?
Some long time followers of this thread might remember that I made a post asking the question... 'How many Hasselblad cameras that were used on the moon were returned back to Earth?'

The way I look at it Mitchell's Camera was intended by NASA (the NASA of the Apollo era) to be left as junk on the moon, never touched again by human hands, never inspected, never tested in a lab, never ever ever.

That was NASA's intent? Wasn't it? After looking at that question we could possibly go on to discuss some of the ramifications of such an artifact existing today, on Earth 40 years later, after the alleged Moon landing of Apollo 14.

Mitchell's Camera, if it were examined today by an independent expert, in a neutral setting, is it still operational? How long, roughly or exactly, has Mitchell been in personal possession of it? Has he ever lent it out? And why 40 years later does the NASA of our day want this camera back so badly that they would file suit against the same astronaut who was responsible for bringing back what *could be*, ahem, an artifact that could prove or disprove the reality of some of Mitchell's claims.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

CGI ? What are you kidding me? Dude, blue screen was used back prior to the 1940's.
The shots used in Apollo were minimalistic, and the picture quality was horrible.

Horrible? I guess you haven't seen this yet:

Which shows aboslutely nothing.
Ist just a higher budget version of this:


Im not impressed.
What is impressive is that the Rover is not making a rooster tail with the dirt.

That the rover did not fly off the ground, or tip over (weight distribution only one astronaut in Rover) when it hit bumps, and craters.

That the 16mm camera has the entire surface & objects in the sun, exposed correctly.

That the radiation has not fogged any of the film.
Thats impressive if they were on the moon.

Let me ask you something.
How many times did they shoot themselves jumping or hopping using 16mm?
Or any special low gravity antics. Because that was the topic of discussion DJ.
The fact that these antics were done with crappy videos. Show an electric car going over some small dunes is not impressive. You are impressed by that. Thats your proof they were on the moon?
Are you kidding me? Such little evidence is all you need?

Did you also get fooled by this recent hoax:


And you thought, "Hey the Iraqi's are happy the US is there saving the poor Iraqi people! We should be out of there in no time at all" We are going to help the Libyans, Syrians and Iranians next.

Its Psyops. Just like Apollo. Pysops to make the Russians look inferior and make the US population proud of their country. Pysops. You have been effected by it since infiltration of Nazi's in the US intelligence, aerospace and military departments.

reply to post by FoosM


Do you have this one?

[IMG]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1392/coverstoriesfromsapdoc.jpg[/IMG ]

media.abovetopsecret.com...

I ended up finding out that the Hasselblad's on Apollo 14 were all intended to be left on the moon from this NBC commentary... it's at about 5:40 in this particular video... NBC News Coverage of Apollo 14 Part 33. So now the attempt will be to figure out exactly how Mitchell got his Hasselblad back to planet Earth and kept it away from NASA for 40 years.