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: 557
377
<< 554  555  556    558  559  560 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



IMO the onus is on proving they DID send man to the moon, not that they didn't...


Why should they bother? Do you really think anyone at NASA loses any sleep because someone on the far side of the planet doesn't believe that men landed on the Moon? On the other hand, Jarrah White has dedicated his life to proving that NASA didn't, and he has done nothing but fail. Sad.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Well how many posts have the likes of you contributed over the 500 odd pages of this thread??

Seems at least some care what people think..



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Well how many posts have the likes of you contributed over the 500 odd pages of this thread??

Seems at least some care what people think..


Actually, I'm more concerned about how people think. If people want to believe that a comet is a sign from god, there is no arguing with them. If, on the other hand, they use pseudo-science to "prove" their contention, I have to object. If people are willing to swallow crazy cock and bull stories without any critical thinking, I try to wake them up a bit. I respect your position as a "super skeptic." There is no amount of evidence that will convince you once you've set the bar as high as you have, so there is no point in my trying. My only objective in this thread, as I repeat every fifty pages or so, is to apply critical thinking to Jarrah's flimsy claims. I am personally frightened by the way so many members of ATS substitute YouTube videos for thought.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by dpd11
 


IMO the onus is on proving they DID send man to the moon, not that they didn't...

And there's NO 100% proof that I've seen yet.
Nothing that couldn't have been done remotely or faked..
The moon rocks.
1. Characteristics that are not found on Earth, and are impossible to fake by any current or 1969 technology.
2. No drone has ever retrieved samples in the amount the Apollo missions did.
3. NASA has and will cheerfully send samples to any qualified authority who asks, and has done so for decades. Nixon gave away said rocks to over 135 countries. Given that each "faked" rock the public gets their hands on increases the risk of discovery exponentially, the risk quickly becomes so high no one who has somehow managed to pull off the other complicated parts of the conspiracy is going to do it in the first place. To reuse an earlier analogy, one'd have better odds of surviving walking across a busy freeway blindfolded.

Whether you think of it as "proof" or not has little bearing on whether it is. Stop representing your judgement as infallable. Lots of people smarter than you and I think it's proof. I defer to them. If you are going to claim or speculate said scientists, thousands of them at least, are all in on it, there are plenty of stolen moon rocks. If someone exposes NASA, they're set for life. In fact, their lawyer could argue that they can't have stolen moon rocks if what they have isn't moon rocks. And then there's patriotism; even if someone stole said rocks, and found out they were fake, they may prioritize exposing the fraud over the risk of arrest. Or both.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
Whether you think of it as "proof" or not has little bearing on whether it is. Stop representing your judgement as infallable. Lots of people smarter than you and I think it's proof. I defer to them. If you are going to claim or speculate said scientists, thousands of them at least, are all in on it, there are plenty of stolen moon rocks. If someone exposes NASA, they're set for life. In fact, their lawyer could argue that they can't have stolen moon rocks if what they have isn't moon rocks. And then there's patriotism; even if someone stole said rocks, and found out they were fake, they may prioritize exposing the fraud over the risk of arrest. Or both.


An argument by Appeal to authority? Remember that there will only be 12 expert authorities on the subject of the Apollo moon landings. 3 of these experts have passed away leaving 9 of them alive.

One of the still living experts is Edgar Mitchell who believes in aliens and has in his personal possession an Apollo 14 DAC camera that he wasn't supposed to bring back from the moon. And NASA want's that camera back ...... really bad ..... you going to see Apollo 18?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



An argument by Appeal to authority? Remember that there will only be 12 expert authorities on the subject of the Apollo moon landings. 3 of these experts have passed away leaving 9 of them alive.


I presume you are one of those people who refuse to believe that the First World War never happened because there is no-one alive who participated in it.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats that got to do with Surveyor?
I know he mentioned Lunokhod, sorry If I didnt state the obvious since I linked the article, I was referring to the US side of the space program. The one NASA should know more about.
What do the Surveyor craft have to do with retroreflectors?


Why did you get stars for asking a question?

But to answer your question, its not just the reflectors they have an issue with, its also the experiments.
Otherwise, why would they worry about ALL Apollo sites?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



IMO the onus is on proving they DID send man to the moon, not that they didn't...


Why should they bother? Do you really think anyone at NASA loses any sleep because someone on the far side of the planet doesn't believe that men landed on the Moon? On the other hand, Jarrah White has dedicated his life to proving that NASA didn't, and he has done nothing but fail. Sad.


They cared enough to consider publishing a book about it.


NASA’s official reaction to these and other questions was both clumsy and often counter-productive. On the infamous Fox Television moon hoax program, which was broadcast several times in the first half of 2001, a NASA spokesman named Brian Welch appeared several times to counter the hoaxist arguments (Welch was a top-level official at the Public Affairs Office at NASA Headquarters, who died a few months later). The poor TV impression he gave (a know-it-all “rocket scientist” denouncing each argument as false but usually without providing supporting evidence) may have been due to deliberate editing by the producers to make the “NASA guy” look arrogant and contemptuous. But to a large degree it accurately reflected NASA’s institutional attitude to the entire controversy. The disappointing results of participating seemed to strengthen the view within NASA that the best response was no response—to avoid anything that might dignify the charges.


I didnt know that. RIP.

Roger Launius, then the chief of the history office at headquarters, was an exception to NASA’s overall unwillingness to engage the issue. As an amateur space historian and folklorist, I had been discussing with him for years the need for NASA to fulfill its educational outreach charter and to issue a series of modest monographs (a historian’s term for a single-theme pamphlet-length publication) on many different widespread cultural myths about space activities. These ranged from allegations of UFO sightings (and videotapings) by astronauts, to the discovery of alien artifacts on the Moon and Mars and elsewhere, to miraculous and paranormal folklore associated with space activities, to the hoax accusations. Launius, nearing retirement in early 2002, decided it was time for a detailed response to the Apollo hoax accusations, and offered me a sole-source contract to write a monograph that analyzed why such stories seemed to attractive to so many people. Launius departed NASA soon thereafter, leaving the project in the care of a junior historian, Stephen Garber.

My requests for inputs from various NASA offices and public educational organizations soon reached the ears of news reporters, and some print stories appeared in late October. Although NASA officials were somewhat taken aback by the publicity, they were at first inclined to defend the project on educational grounds.

Then, on Monday, November 4, 2002, the eve of the national elections, ABC’s World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings chose the subject for his closing story: “Finally this evening, we’re not quite sure what we think about this,” he intoned. “But the space agency is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the moon.”

Jennings described how “NASA had been so rattled” it “hired” somebody “to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists.” He closed with a misquotation: “A professor of astronomy in California said he thought it was beneath NASA’s dignity to give these Twinkies the time of day. Now, that was his phrase, by the way. We simply wonder about NASA.”

Jennings was referring to Philip Plait, an educator (not a professor) in California who runs the Bad Astronomy Web site that discusses many mythical aspects of outer space. What Plait actually had said was that he felt it was proper for NASA to respond, but that it did seem “beneath their dignity” to be forced to do it. Contrary to Jennings’s account, Plait fully supported the monograph contract.

But that TV insult did it as far as NASA management was concerned. Their dignity called into question, and fearing angry telephone calls from congressmen returning to Washington after the election, they decided to revoke the contract. They paid for work done to date and washed their hands of the project.

Many educators contacted me in dismay. Like them, and unlike the NASA spokesmen, I had always felt that “there is no such thing as a stupid question.” And to me the moon hoax controversy was not a bothersome distraction, but a unique opportunity.




Pretty weak willed organization.


www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Otherwise, why would they worry about ALL Apollo sites?


Busted again:


The recent images released by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites are truly remarkable. But there is one instrument on board LRO that must avoid studying some of the the Apollo sites as well as other places where humans have placed spacecraft on the the lunar surface


Your own source.

Misrepresent much?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

An argument by Appeal to authority?
Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy if the person in question is an authority. I can listen to my cousin Jim-Bob about my stomach pains, or I can listen to a doctor. The doctor is by definition, more likely to determine the problem accurately than Jim-Bob, unless Jim-Bob is also a doctor. And when thousands of said authorities has confirmed said evidence for several decades, and their opposition is usually unlettered people on the Internet who find "anomalies" that "look wrong", I'm gonna take the former's side.


Remember that there will only be 12 expert authorities on the subject of the Apollo moon landings. 3 of these experts have passed away leaving 9 of them alive.
What are you talking about?


One of the still living experts is Edgar Mitchell who believes in aliens
Well, 80 year olds are often senile.


and has in his personal possession an Apollo 14 DAC camera that he wasn't supposed to bring back from the moon. And NASA want's that camera back ...... really bad ..... you going to see Apollo 18?
You mean the government wants possession of their historical artifact that Mitchell allegedly took without permission? Gosh, that's suspicious.

I don't see what any of this has to do with proving the landings were faked, relying on your usual empty rhetoric. I also note that you are ignoring the part of my post about the moon rocks. Pulling a FoosM, are we?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



There is no amount of evidence that will convince you once you've set the bar as high as you have, so there is no point in my trying.


Ahh, asking for REAL proof from anyone but the defendant is setting the bar too high..



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Otherwise, why would they worry about ALL Apollo sites?


Busted again:


The recent images released by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites are truly remarkable. But there is one instrument on board LRO that must avoid studying some of the the Apollo sites as well as other places where humans have placed spacecraft on the the lunar surface


Your own source.

Misrepresent much?


You know, if you have to celebrate over these small issues then you have already lost the debate.

The article also states:

David E. Smith, LOLA principal investigator confirmed that, indeed, LOLA is switched off over the Apollo and Lunakhod sites,

Period.

Now, if it was only some, and not all, then you should be able to provide us with LOLA images of Apollo sites.
At that point you can win points on this particular debate. If you cant provide it, then the assumption stands that they actually mean ALL the sites, and the reason for it is due to there not being any remnants of Apollo on the moon.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 



You mean the government wants possession of their historical artifact that Mitchell allegedly took without permission? Gosh, that's suspicious.


You REALLY think he just snuck it through all of NASA's security, including time spent in quarantine??
I wonder where he hid it.


BTW, the camera is apparently not the only item he took..
Are NASA so concerned about the other items or just the camera for some odd reason???



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
I also note that you are ignoring the part of my post about the moon rocks. Pulling a FoosM, are we?


Why would SJ bother with faked moon rocks?
Be they made from petrified wood, came from Antarctica, or the ocean?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now, if it was only some, and not all, then you should be able to provide us with LOLA images of Apollo sites.
At that point you can win points on this particular debate. If you cant provide it, then the assumption stands that they actually mean ALL the sites, and the reason for it is due to there not being any remnants of Apollo on the moon.


From the Planetary Data System, the ground target tracks of the LOLA passes of the Apollo sites (covering roughly 0.20º latitude and longitude):

Apollo 11:


Apollo 12:


Apollo 14:


Apollo 15:


Apollo 16:


Apollo 17:


Notice how there are breaks in the tracks around the sites for Apollos 11, 12, and 15, which just happen to be the ones that deployed retroreflectors.


jra

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Now, if it was only some, and not all, then you should be able to provide us with LOLA images of Apollo sites.
At that point you can win points on this particular debate. If you cant provide it, then the assumption stands that they actually mean ALL the sites, and the reason for it is due to there not being any remnants of Apollo on the moon.


Except that LOLA wouldn't be able to pick up enough detail to spot any Apollo hardware. The laser beam is diffracted into 5 beams. Each beam is about 5m in diameter when it reaches the ground and all 5 beams are 25m apart from one another. That's not enough to get any kind of recognizable detail.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Forgive my ignorance, but if the beams are diffracted THAT much then why are they worried about a beam bouncing back of the reflectors??



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra
 


Forgive my ignorance, but if the beams are diffracted THAT much then why are they worried about a beam bouncing back of the reflectors??



Well b in b the reflectores are designed so that the beam goes straight back same direction it came did you know or think about that?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
This thread is going to set records at this rate, Foosm asked any school kids yet to explain to you how shadows should look on rough terrain?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
I also note that you are ignoring the part of my post about the moon rocks. Pulling a FoosM, are we?


Why would SJ bother with faked moon rocks?
Be they made from petrified wood, came from Antarctica, or the ocean?


000063 is simply providing a good opportunity to bring up Brian Mason
who is considered an *expert* in meteorites & moon rocks, and determined, in 1982,


While examining meteorites collected by U.S. expeditions to Antarctica, he wrote in his notes that they seemed to be rocks from the moon, an idea that astrophysicists had said was impossible. Unwilling to show up other scholars in the field, his published comment was that they "had a passing resemblance to certain Apollo 15 lunar rocks." Within a year, other scientists agreed. It wasn't the first or last time his work forced a reconsideration of an entire field.


See it only takes one man of great determination to change the thinking of an entire field of science!


During the 1960s, an upsurge in space research and the imminent Apollo programme stimulated increasing requests for meteorites. With Ed Henderson of the Smithsonian Institute, Mason initiated a search for new meteorites in the Australian Outback, where the arid desert conditions were favourable to their survival and recovery. In four expeditions between 1963 and1967, the pair covered 40036 miles and made a significant number of finds. Then in 1965, Mason joined the Smithsonian, as the meteorite division expanded in anticipation of the need for significant scientific backup to support the lunar programme.

In February 1969, an exploding fireball scattered tons of the Allende meteorite over the Mexican countryside. In July, the Apollo 11 astronauts made the first Moon landing, returning with 22kg of lunar material and in December of that year, Japanese glaciologists picked up nine meteorites on the icecap near the Yamoto Mountains of Antarctica. Source www.geol.canterbury.ac.nz...


In other news,

During the local summer of 1966–67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management. ...


Meteorites are prepared for study and conservation in museums using a laboratory clean room process that eliminates the water in the sample. It is plausible that Apollo moon rocks were prepared using that same process, to remove the water first and, coincidentally, it could also be used to remove any traces or mineral signatures that could confuse an astrophysicist about a meteorites terrestrial resting place. NASA (in the 1960's - where money was no object) could have collected 22kg of meteorites from various places on earth.

Because back in the day Brian Mason proved that moon rocks can be found right here on planet Earth.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 554  555  556    558  559  560 >>

log in

join