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: 578
377
<< 575  576  577    579  580  581 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Well its part of the early "tainting" of hoax believers isn't it?
A counter balance of thought.
Using agism, sexism, racism, nationalism, etc, as a negative association.
So the typical middle class anglo american in the 60's would not want to be associated with an 80 year old, a negro, a communist, redneck, or any group burdened by stereotypes, who disbelieve the claims that NASA landed men on the moon. A classic tactic used to disrupt people from asking questions.

Im surprised you fell for it. But why would I? We all fall for these kinds of tricks one way or another. So as you say, your first thought was not about a wise old woman who after living full life could see easier than young impressionable persons that her government was lying to her... life lessons learned and all that. No, you instead focused on:



Old people are more prone than the general population to going senile, Alzheimer's, and other mental problems. This is not some sort of slur; this is scientific fact.


So, you could have come up with some stereotype for black people as well, and claim it as fact... right?
Sure I can. I can also tell the truth. For example; Black people are more likely than Whites to commit violent crime, end up in jail, and/or be executed. Again, I am not making any of these statistics up. The question is not what they indicate about Black people, it's what they indicate about Black people's place in American culture. However, this is not relevant to a)what any given black person's opinion is on something, and b)whether that opinion is correct.

Old people can be just as wrong as anyone else. In fact, for the reasons I already stated, they are actually more likely to be wrong. You have not actually contradicted that, just laid down a smokescreen of rhetoric.


Maybe you might have said something like,
And I didn't.


"Well, lets be honest, blacks in 1960's America had less access to the same quality of education as whites. Therefore, they might not as a whole understand the scientific principles and proofs associated with the manned Moon landing" I mean, thats not racism, thats just stating fact, right?
No it's not. You are making two very large mistakes here;

1. It doesn't matter who or how many people believe in something if it is wrong.
2. Blacks in the 60s did not receive the same education opportunities as whites. There was a fair amount of controversy over it, I hear. Some preacher or something got shot over it. So even your emotive rhetoric is factually incorrect.

You're trying to insinuate I'm bigot. I'm not. If my facts are false, prove it.


Originally posted by FoosM
So the monkeys volunteered?
Straw man.
edit on 2011/9/22 by 000063 because: +




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001 There is absolutely no excuse for anyone in the civilized world to be eating meat.


For historical context, the Apollo 11 crew ate steak & eggs for breakfast before the lift-off.

The Apollo 11 crew and Donald K. "Deke" Slayton look over charts during the traditional launch day breakfast of steak and eggs on July 16, 1969. Source www.boston.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterBecause DJW001 was a valuable part of that discussion I didn't see the need to answer any of DJW001's rhetorical questions. My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
You mean, like the insinuated Ad Hominem you just made?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterBecause DJW001 was a valuable part of that discussion I didn't see the need to answer any of DJW001's rhetorical questions. My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
You mean, like the insinuated Ad Hominem you just made?


My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
2nd.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
DJ your going way off topic.
You are derailing the conversation and collecting stars for it.
No, he's trying to get somewhere from a point SJ bought up. Whether it's correct or not is another matter, but it is relevant, since SJ bought it up in the first place.SJ is desperately trying to change the subject, using your and his favorite methods of spamming stuff that is relevant to the topic, but not what was being discussed.


Killing animals for sustenance is natural.
Arguably, yes. But farming, which is where most food comes from, is by definition unnatural. Watch Mike Rowe stick a gloved hand up a horse's rear to stimulate it's prostate in order to get it's semen, and tell me that's natural. (I may be remembering the details wrong.)

Also, 'natural' ain't worth jack. You are, by definition, reading this on a device that converts signals on an artificial disk to characters in the alphabet to images on a screen. Unless someone printed it out, which is also 'unnatural'. Clothes are unnatural. A house is unnatural. Buildings are unnatural. Etc, etc.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterBecause DJW001 was a valuable part of that discussion I didn't see the need to answer any of DJW001's rhetorical questions. My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
You mean, like the insinuated Ad Hominem you just made?


My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
2nd.
SJ, you just implied that DJ was making the argument personal because he was losing. In doing so, you made the argument personal. By your own claim, you are losing.

EDIT: Something else you're not doing; answering my question.

Do you think the astronauts liars, or trustworthy?



Feel free to ignore it, of course. It just makes it more and more transparent that you're intellectually dishonest.
edit on 2011/9/22 by 000063 because: +



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow, and I got my post deleted because I had a video of a high ranking officer stating that no man could fly past the VABs. But its fine for DJ to discuss the pros and cons of eating meat in a moon hoax thread.

Which SJ bought up, not DJ.

I'll bet it was your patented 'post video with no explanation' method of debate, wasn't it?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001 There is absolutely no excuse for anyone in the civilized world to be eating meat.


For historical context, the Apollo 11 crew ate steak & eggs for breakfast before the lift-off.

The Apollo 11 crew and Donald K. "Deke" Slayton look over charts during the traditional launch day breakfast of steak and eggs on July 16, 1969. Source www.boston.com...

Hey, FoosM, SJ's discussing meat. Better call him out like you did DJ.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Apollogists can be productive in this thread by providing:

1. sourced links to videos of Apollo astronauts post-flight press conferences for missions A12-A17.
2. a compelling scientific justification for the 5 counts of animal cruelty in Biosat III experiment.
3. data which refutes Jarrah White's conclusions that Apollo moon rocks contain water & minerals showing that Apollo moon rocks are indistinguishable from terrestrial counterparts. I highly recommend that Apollogists review this series ...

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same. PART 1.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Do you think the astronauts liars, or trustworthy?



Feel free to ignore it, of course. It just makes it more and more transparent that you're intellectually dishonest.
edit on 2011/9/22 by 000063 because: +


I'll follow Phage's prime example by providing this non answer. When Apollo astronauts speak about their experiences in LEO space I tend to believe them. When Apollo astronauts speak about their experiences on the surface of the Moon I understand that there are only 12 men who can make that claim, 3 of them are passed away, and 9 of them are still living.

One of these remaining Apollo astronauts, Edgar Mitchell, has stated things which eventually made him an outcast at NASA. Therefore he is no longer 100% credible in the eyes of the Apollogist community.

Another of these remaining Apollo astronauts, Buzz Aldrin, has stated that looking out of the CM he could see stars, lot's of stars, fixed in their positions. This appears to contradict another astronaut ON THE SAME FLIGHT, Michael Collins, who at the infamous Apollo 11 press conference stated without reservations that he didn't recall seeing any stars!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

1. It doesn't matter who or how many people believe in something if it is wrong.
2. Blacks in the 60s did not receive the same education opportunities as whites. There was a fair amount of controversy over it, I hear. Some preacher or something got shot over it. So even your emotive rhetoric is factually incorrect.

You're trying to insinuate I'm bigot. I'm not. If my facts are false, prove it.


Wow... talk about quote mining.
You completely focused on defending yourself on a "black" issue without relating it to Apollo. What are you trying to defend? I dont care if you are a bigot or not, Im debating Apollo on this thread. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. You didnt acknowledge that the media used old people and blacks as a negative association for anyone who didn't believe in the moon hoax. Thats the important point. Either you agree with this or you dont.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001 There is absolutely no excuse for anyone in the civilized world to be eating meat.


For historical context, the Apollo 11 crew ate steak & eggs for breakfast before the lift-off.

The Apollo 11 crew and Donald K. "Deke" Slayton look over charts during the traditional launch day breakfast of steak and eggs on July 16, 1969. Source www.boston.com...

Hey, FoosM, SJ's discussing meat. Better call him out like you did DJ.


SJ is discussing meat in the context of Apollo.
Just like SJ was discussing animal torture in the context of Apollo.
Whats your problem with that?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why dont you retract your earlier statement if you cant back it up.
The Tonight Show is not the same as a NASA post flight press conference.
But I understand that you see it all as TV PROGRAMMING.


Very well, I'll e-mail NASA myself. Please don't project your inability to distinguish videos from reality on to me.


Good luck with that.

There is n o t h i n g out there on the internet for press conferences A12, A14, A15, A16 ,,,,,,


It's ironic that the conventional historical attitude is that 'American's were losing interest in going to the Moon' but when we look at the facts..... NASA stopped having post splash-down press conferences after A11.

Apollo 11. That seems to be where the line is drawn. And now we know who's hiding our space history from us.

NASA

(certain elements within NASA loyal to the military industrial complex and loyal to Richard Nixon)

Here is Apollo 13's press conference. But the press aren't really asking too many questions here. Lovell calls it a "briefing".

edit on 9/23/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterBecause DJW001 was a valuable part of that discussion I didn't see the need to answer any of DJW001's rhetorical questions. My understanding is that some people will make the argument personal when they are losing it........
You mean, like the insinuated Ad Hominem you just made?


Your time would be better spent watching Jarrah White's latest Moon Rock video series.

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited.
Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica.
PART 1



And then you refute his conclusions here in this thread

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!






posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
PASSING THE TORCH


Today I have an important announcement. As of September 1st 2011, I am the sole copyright holder of Ralph René's "NASA Mooned America" and all four of his fiction books. His "WTC Lies & Fairy Tales" remains the copyright of Dr Stephen Rorke, whilst the copyrights to "The Last Skeptic Of Science" have gone to a physicist pursuing René's alternative science theories.

For the record, I have no interest in profiting from these books. All the money made from sales will go straight towards future experiments and productions. Also, if there is a high demand for it, I may consider doing a screenplay of René's fiction books after my current Ranma's Declaration Of Motherhood project is completed.

If you would like to make a purchase, please contact me at: Jarrahw@gmail.com




In this video JW claims several "pro apollo" persons had requested to by the rights to Ralph Rene's moon hoax book. Do you think they were fans, or do you think they wanted to limit people's ability to do further research into the hoax? Devious.... and telling if true.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited.
Episode 4, Wernher von Braun in Antarctica.
PART 1





Check this out:


During the late 1960s, von Braun played an instrumental role in the development of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville. The desk from which he guided America's entry in the Space Race remains on display there.

In 1966/67 antarctic summer, von Braun participated in a U.S. government expedition to Antarctica. The expedition was one of the first to systematically search the ice surface for meteorites believed to originate from the moon, for later use as a reference material.

In an internal memo dated January 16, 1969, von Braun had confirmed to his staff that he would stay on as a center director at Huntsville to . the Apollo Applications Program. A few months later, on occasion of the first moon-landing, he publicly expressed his optimism that the Saturn V carrier system would continue to be developed, advocating manned missions to Mars in the 1980s.


Thats from www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Compare it to Wiki:


During the late 1960s, von Braun was instrumental in the development of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville. The desk from which he guided America's entry in the Space Race remains on display there.

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.[59] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space. Von Braun was mainly interested in management of the scientific effort on Antarctic research stations, logistics, habitation and life support, and in using the barren Antarctic terrain like the glacial dry valleys to test the equipment that one day would be used to look for signs of life on Mars and other worlds.

In an internal memo dated January 16, 1969,[60] von Braun had confirmed to his staff that he would stay on as a center director at Huntsville to . the Apollo Applications Program. A few months later, on occasion of the first moon-landing, he publicly expressed his optimism that the Saturn V carrier system would continue to be developed, advocating manned missions to Mars in the 1980s.






The originator of this (New World Encyclopedia) project is Sun Myung Moon.
NWE editors and contributors promote the ideal of joy and universal happiness through the realization of human responsibility toward self-creation, constructive human relations, and the protection and enhancement of nature and the environment in life and practice. These universal values and ideals are inherent in the great religions, philosophies, and teachings of conscience.


Something fishy going on here.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Apollogists can be productive in this thread by providing:

1. sourced links to videos of Apollo astronauts post-flight press conferences for missions A12-A17.
2. a compelling scientific justification for the 5 counts of animal cruelty in Biosat III experiment.
3. data which refutes Jarrah White's conclusions that Apollo moon rocks contain water & minerals showing that Apollo moon rocks are indistinguishable from terrestrial counterparts. I highly recommend that Apollogists review this series ...


Thank-you for the focus and clarity you are bringing to this part of the thread. Although moon rocks have been discussed as per # 3 there has been no rigorous response to the multiple points outlined by Jarrah regarding the comparison of lunar rocks to terrestrial ones, and it would be interesting and useful to see responses that address the points he made directly.

As per # 2, I understand the general question mark attached to these non-human experiments ... i.e. why put them through it if there is equivalent or better data from humans during Apollo. It makes me wonder though if the separation partly exists through a genuine lack of coordination i.e. people running one set of experiments are not the same ones running the parallel redundant ones. We are juxtaposing them after the fact ( when it is easier to see how having one set of data may preclude the requirement for the other ) whereas each set of experiments may simply have followed its own independent path. This is especially possible since the non human experiments were focused on answering a single set of related questions whereas the Apollo missions had many disparate focuses.

As per # 1, it is an open question what it means if no post-mission conferences were actually held. Is this ascribable to a simple change in format for whatever reason ( different person or commitee in charge of planning the after-party ) or does it point to a suspicious inconsistency ?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Interesting...


New York Times reported hint by Leonid I. Dubrovin, chief of 11th U.S.S.R. Antarctic expedition, broadcast by radio from Mirny Antarc- tic station, “that the Soviet Union planned to use the Antarctic as a testing ground for manned landings on the moon.” Dubrovin had said fierce Antarctic conditions would test man’s adaptability and scientists could learn much there “that would help man to survive in the desolate conditions of the moon.” (NYT,5/1/66, 15)


So the Soviets state that they could use the Antarctic for moon landing training, then soon after NASA goes to the Antarctic for supposedly the same thing.

www.scribd.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



1. sourced links to videos of Apollo astronauts post-flight press conferences for missions A12-A17.


I am working on it. Just because something isn't on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


2. a compelling scientific justification for the 5 counts of animal cruelty in Biosat III experiment.


Already given:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course, you probably did not understand it as I intentionally used inflammatory language in order to evoke an emotional, rather than logical response. You know, the way you use words like "torture" to characterize a scientific experiment, or litter your posts with references to completely irrelevant topics like the Viet Nam war. Speaking of irrelevant, what do the Biosatellite missions have to do with Apollo? They were obviously intended to examine long term effects of the space environment. Oh, right... they didn't have anything to do with Apollo. You just can't resist a chance to use negative emotive words in order to conceal your lack of logic. After all, weren't you claiming that NASA hadn't sent enough animals into space? Rather than use the same tired language, why don't you just use expressions like "Imperialist running dog?"


3. data which refutes Jarrah White's conclusions that Apollo moon rocks contain water & minerals showing that Apollo moon rocks are indistinguishable from terrestrial counterparts. I highly recommend that Apollogists review this series ...


Given that every time I watch one of his videos, I expose all his lies on this thread, do you really want me to watch that video?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
the united states loaned moon rock samples to dozens of countries and they have been examined in thousands of labs independent of NASA or the USA.

Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are fake, and the only person to figure it out is an innerweb poster 40 years later ?

the innerwebs make me lol



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 575  576  577    579  580  581 >>

log in

join