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: 566
377
<< 563  564  565    567  568  569 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Note how the Moon Hoax propagandists use the same charged language over and over again. "Criminal" and "exceptional." American exceptionalism is criminal. Gulf of Tonkin. Tricky Dick. All buzz words designed to brainwash people into believing that anything an American does is evil. Too bad the attempt is so clumsy that only people already inclined to reject the historical record find it persuasive. From now on, every time you say "Gulf of Tonkin" I'm going to say "Marshall Plan."


DJW001 you are trying to make the case that all Apollo skeptics are grouped in together, with the same thoughts and the same motives. In this case DJW001 you are genuinely in error. That is why you will fail to persuade in this debate.

I don't know what FoosM goals are. I don't know what drives Richard Hoagland. I am certainly not privy to Jarrah White's personal motives. If you can prove that I know the goals, drives and motives of these 3 people then go ahead and try to make that case.

Now, you made the claim that I used "buzz words designed to brainwash people into believing that anything an American does is evil." This is nothing more than ad hominem and you are fully aware of this.

I didn't realize that historical facts were considered "buzz words". Nixon was a crook. His administration was crooked. ALL APOLLO MOON LANDINGS occurred under Nixon. The telemetry tapes were destroyed. These are the facts that you will not acknowledge.

Now, as FoosM says, LET'S GET BACK TO BUSINESS




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



With this statement you looked back at 1972 (with all the advantages of 20/20 hindsight) and boldy tell try to sell us that NASA didn't know how far data processing would advance. Surely you must be joking.


What does the size of a transistor have to do with data processing? In 1969 that just meant smaller radios. Sure, they knew that it would be possible to perform more calculations per unit mass but they would not understand what that would mean in terms of the way that those calculations could be used. In fact, no-one could predict how personal computers would change the way data processing would change. The fact that they were recording the telemetry on tape should give you a clue. Digital storage was done on tapes and punch cards in those days. The advent of the personal computer allowed broad access to people who otherwise would not be able to program computers, which led to the developments of applications undreamt of in those days. Suddenly, musicians were able to write programs to "fix" their recordings, architects were able to develop programs that could draft for them, photographers were able to create software that could alter photographs. No-one had any idea that this was possible in the early 1970's. It is you who is guilty of using 20/20 hindsight to project what we now know onto people 40 years ago.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I didn't realize that historical facts were considered "buzz words". Nixon was a crook. His administration was crooked. ALL APOLLO MOON LANDINGS occurred under Nixon. The telemetry tapes were destroyed. These are the facts that you will not acknowledge.


But all of the planning and development for the Moon landings took place under LBJ, one of the most progressive presidents in history! He was dedicated to the "Great Society," he was responsible for Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, expansion of Social Security... when he realized how disastrous the war in Viet Nam had become, he declined to run for re-election. As one of the first senators to realize the strategic importance of space power, Johnson would never have permitted anything less than a genuine space program. These are the facts that you keep avoiding.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

why dont you explain how these new photos are conclusive evidence.
Are these photos beyond the technology of fakery?


Of course they are not beyond 'fakery'. Why is your default position that they must be fake?

The photos are just a new piece of evidence, nothing more or less. However a lot of you have been clamouring for higher resolution LRO images. You got them, and re now ignoring them. So why were higher resolution images asked for in the first place if you would simply ignore them?

Hence my question, what would actually impress you? What would you consider to be evidence that would actually have you question your belief that the moon landings were fake? I still dont think you will answer the question, because you have no interest in learning anything new. You just want to justify your belief.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

why dont you explain how these new photos are conclusive evidence.
Are these photos beyond the technology of fakery?


Of course they are not beyond 'fakery'.


Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know.
So if its not beyond fakery, why should we skeptics not be skeptical?
As long as you can recognize the evidence is not conclusive, I dont know why you
are concerned what we think. You should be more asking NASA why they cant offer
more conclusive evidence for events 40 years ago.



Hence my question, what would actually impress you?

You have something out there that is impressive?
Well please provide it.
NASA had 40 years to come up with something definitive.
They fell short.
What you got for us?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

But all of the planning and development for the Moon landings took place under LBJ, one of the most progressive presidents in history! He was dedicated to the "Great Society," he was responsible for Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, expansion of Social Security... when he realized how disastrous the war in Viet Nam had become, he declined to run for re-election. As one of the first senators to realize the strategic importance of space power, Johnson would never have permitted anything less than a genuine space program. These are the facts that you keep avoiding.


LBJ was concerned about securing jobs for his part of he country and using Space for military advantages.
He probably quit because the stress of faking Apollo got to him, or that he was behind several assassinations.
He was all for Vietnam. He started programs to grow the federal government and undermine state rights. I dont know why you want to sugarcoat this guy.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont know why you want to sugarcoat this guy.


Same reason you are trying to vilify him, Nixon, NASA, the scientific community and so forth. Aren't I being obvious enough for you?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



NASA had 40 years to come up with something definitive.
They fell short.
What you got for us?


So have the Hoax Propagandists. Everything that Bill Kaysing has ever written has been shown to be a lie. Same with Bart Sibrel. Jarrah White has been exposed as a liar more times on this thread than I can count. Where is your skepticism when Jarrah says that the CSM remained in near Earth orbit? As a skeptic you should be clamoring for him to demand those photographs taken by independent amateur astronomers that prove his point, right? I certainly am.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


I would like to add to your comment if he looked up sound argument or not. He still done what is expected on a topic that most poeple thought lost because of long debates on internet sites
which consequently get you nowhere and actuality has no affect on the truth coming out .He looked up facts an used them be them his own or not but the truth remains they are facts. He has done more for the truth seekers than just posting on some forum he gives me more hope than the over inflated iq personalitys i have come across on my travels through certain debate sites. who think because they sit there an debate the topic on a few sites that it archives some thing it don't unless you challenge the ones in power with all the facts you can muster do you think that there aint a team behind every government debateist' that are collectively using each others material they are unified that's why they are wining in holding on to the truth if you think you have a good fact that can be used in the truth war on any topic then tell the ones who are making the effort to debate it with those who matter and winning such debates can give the subject real light instead of just quoting the same fact you have found over an over on any site you can to make you come across smart this type of effort is no effort at all. PS we need to unify our efforts or all hope is lost people.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by indisputable
reply to post by zaiger
 


I would like to add to your comment if he looked up sound argument or not. He still done what is expected on a topic that most poeple thought lost because of long debates on internet sites
which consequently get you nowhere and actuality has no affect on the truth coming out .He looked up facts an used them be them his own or not but the truth remains they are facts. He has done more for the truth seekers than just posting on some forum he gives me more hope than the over inflated iq personalitys i have come across on my travels through certain debate sites. who think because they sit there an debate the topic on a few sites that it archives some thing it don't unless you challenge the ones in power with all the facts you can muster do you think that there aint a team behind every government debateist' that are collectively using each others material they are unified that's why they are wining in holding on to the truth if you think you have a good fact that can be used in the truth war on any topic then tell the ones who are making the effort to debate it with those who matter and winning such debates can give the subject real light instead of just quoting the same fact you have found over an over on any site you can to make you come across smart this type of effort is no effort at all. PS we need to unify our efforts or all hope is lost people.


No they are not 'facts' sorry.
By 'unifying our efforts' do you mean collectively inserting our heads into our respective arses?
The argument here goes beyond the dark little paranoid conspiracy filled world some people on ATS obviously live in. Just because there have been, and are, people higher up the ladder than you or I that lie and twist the truth to their own gain, does not mean that everything that goes into the history book is a lie.
edit on 8-9-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont know why you want to sugarcoat this guy.


Same reason you are trying to vilify him, Nixon, NASA, the scientific community and so forth. Aren't I being obvious enough for you?


Death of millions of Vietnamese is not enough for you?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



NASA had 40 years to come up with something definitive.
They fell short.
What you got for us?


So have the Hoax Propagandists. Everything that Bill Kaysing has ever written has been shown to be a lie. Same with Bart Sibrel. Jarrah White has been exposed as a liar more times on this thread than I can count. Where is your skepticism when Jarrah says that the CSM remained in near Earth orbit? As a skeptic you should be clamoring for him to demand those photographs taken by independent amateur astronomers that prove his point, right? I certainly am.


What did Bill Kaysing lie about?
List it, and show how it was a lie.

And no, skeptics didnt have access to Apollo to ascertain its validity for the last 40 years.
The photos recently were released to the public.
NASA claims material is missing, or is under lock-down.
So no, we dont have access to all information.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


Moderator,

Please explain how new, detailed photos of the Apollo landing sites are not relevant to a discussion of the Apollo missions being fake or not?

New photos of the Apollo sites are considered "off topic"? Unbelievable.

I strongly disagree with my post being removed as anyone participating here would consider the post being pertinent to the discussion.

You lost a long time subscriber to the site.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 


I'd like an answer to that question as well.

How are actual photos of the landing sites, taken from lunar orbit not relevant to this topic?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



With this statement you looked back at 1972 (with all the advantages of 20/20 hindsight) and boldy tell try to sell us that NASA didn't know how far data processing would advance. Surely you must be joking.


What does the size of a transistor have to do with data processing? In 1969 that just meant smaller radios.


My apologies DJ. I wasn't getting your humor


Science gurus Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman race through speed and time to show the wonders of Moore's Law, which is at the core of incredible advances in computer technology.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



I dont know why you want to sugarcoat this guy.


Same reason you are trying to vilify him, Nixon, NASA, the scientific community and so forth. Aren't I being obvious enough for you?


History determines who gets vilified and who is exalted. That's History 101.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



What did Bill Kaysing lie about?
List it, and show how it was a lie.



. I've talked to a number of top-level astronauts, both locally and elsewhere, and they say that the astronauts would have been overwhelmed by the sight of trillions of stars, not to mention Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets and so forth, but not one picture has ever come back from the alleged trip to the moon showing the stars in all their magnificence, nor do any of the astronauts comment on the stars.


We have posted many examples of photographs taken of the stars by the Apollo astronauts. You yourself have posted quotations from the astronauts discussing the stars. Perhaps Kaysing simply "misspoke."


The Russians never intended to land men on the moon.


Again, maybe that was simple ignorance:


Cosmonauts trained for L3 lunar landing missions until October 1973, when the last training group was dissolved. By that time actual manned flight of the original single-launch L3 LOK/LK spacecraft to the moon had been abandoned. Instead work was underway on the N1F-L3M, a twin launch scenario that would put the L3M lander on the surface in 1978 for extended operations, and eventually, a lunar base. This in turn was cancelled with the entire N1 program in 1974.


www.astronautix.com...


I have many, many, many people who will support this view with technical information, including a man who as at the Goldstone tracking station during all of the Apollo flights and he is absolutely convinced that they were faked.


Did Kaysing ever produce any of these expert witnesses?


I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."[


And the name of this Seattle geologist is...?


Well, Christa McAuliffe was a woman of great integrity, and she would not agree to say that you couldn't see stars in space.


How does he know this, exactly?


The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.


How can you not find something that is "well documented?


Well, I did send some of my material to one of their subsidiaries, called The Weekly World News, and they did a marvelous job of presenting my material. It was extremely accurate.


No additional comment necessary.


Oh, yeah. One of my friends went to the Smithsonian and he measured the exit door of the lunar lander and found out that astronauts wearing their life-support systems could not have gone out that door, they were too big.


Even though we have photographs of them actually doing it.


One time I was on KOME radio doing a three-hour show, and half-way through the show someone dropped napalm on the transmitter in the Gilroy Hills. They wanted to cut our story off. Police came, they offered us police protection, and KOME was off the air for three days until they could a quarter of a million dollars' damage.


Can you find a source for this story other than Kaysing himself? None of the numerous KOME tribute pages seems to think the incident worthy of a mention:

www.bayarearadio.org...

All of Bill Kaysings prevarications are from a transcript of a radio show posted on his own site:

billkaysing.com/downloads/Nardwuar_vs_Bill_Kaysing.doc

While I'm at it, I forgot to mention Ralph Rene in the list:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jarrah White has some big shoes to fill.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



What did Bill Kaysing lie about?
List it, and show how it was a lie.




Im still waiting for the lies.
All you have basically shown is that he claimed he knew people, experts, who for whatever reason did not want to be associated with the moon hoax. Thats a normal issue for journalism. Sources that want to stay anonymous. Doesn't help his argument, but doesn't mean he lied about it.

The Soviets publicly said they were not interested in landing men on the moon, until they could overcome radiation and know more about the effects of microgravity. I posted that way back. And if they were secretly trying to do so, well guess what, it was a secret. Could very well be that Kaysing never knew about. That said, we all know that the Soviets wanted to eventually go to Mars, so the going to the moon would not be farfetched. It was just farfetched to think of doing so back in the 1960's. They were thinking more 1980's. And one can see in their program they were studying long term effects of being in space. Stumbling block for them, and everyone else, is still radiation. Read this article calling the Apollo mission a stunt, and only good for propaganda reasons.
news.google.com...,2084423&dq=moon+landing+fake&hl=en

A landing on the moon will mean much in a propaganda sense but, to the Russians, it isn't worth the 20000000000 it is costing the American taxpayers



Article about the dutch papers saying the landing were faked. Who knows. I read an articles back in those days regarding the skepticism.



A Moon Landing? What Moon Landing?
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PERMISSIONS
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORDSpecial to The New York Times ();
December 18, 1969,
KITTY HAWK, N.C., Dec. 17 -- Any event worth a line in the history books invites skepticism. The Flat Earth Society of London still has its doubts about Columbus. A few stool-warmers in Chicago bars are on record as suggesting that the Apollo 11 moon walk last July was actually staged by Hollywood on a Nevada desert.



Man Walked On The Moon? Many Doubt It Happened

news.google.com...,4623496&dq=moon+landing+fake&hl=en



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Article about the dutch papers saying the landing were faked. Who knows. I read an articles back in those days regarding the skepticism.


So you admit that you could find no trace of the "well documented" Dutch newspaper. That's one lie unequivocally busted. Oh, and I see that you can't find an independent account of the fire bombing of one of the Bay Area's legendary rock stations. That's strike two.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Article about the dutch papers saying the landing were faked. Who knows. I read an articles back in those days regarding the skepticism.


So you admit that you could find no trace of the "well documented" Dutch newspaper. That's one lie unequivocally busted. Oh, and I see that you can't find an independent account of the fire bombing of one of the Bay Area's legendary rock stations. That's strike two.


How am I going to find a dutch newspaper from 1969?
And no, it doesn't mean its a lie.




top topics



 
377
<< 563  564  565    567  568  569 >>

log in

join