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: 597
377
<< 594  595  596    598  599  600 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

I think it ranks in the top 5 conspiracy theories of all time.


I agree - it is definitely one of the top 5 theories.

the imagination, the persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is not true, the inability of its beleivers to address factual information, or provide credible evidence themselves - all these aspects are outstanding.

And of course it rates nowhere at all in any list of real conspiracies.


Well, according to wiki :


Space
Main article: Moon landing conspiracy theories
Theorists claim that some or all of the Apollo moon landings were "staged" in a Hollywood movie or other studio either because they never happened or to conceal some aspect of the truth of the circumstances of the actual landing.
Another theory regarding the moon landings is that the Apollo astronauts found a human skeleton and footprints on the moon. (Despite the fact that there is no way for anything to decompose on the moon because its lack of atmosphere would prevent this.) The theory received more widespread attention when the Weekly World News twice published stories about a human skeleton on the moon, first on Nov 28, 1989,[75] and then again on Jul 15, 1997.[76] This same story had been told before in a 1977 novel, Inherit the Stars, by James P. Hogan.
Soviet space program conspiracy accusations suppose that some failed human spaceflights in the USSR occurred but were concealed by the government.
Also some theorists claim that China secretly tried a manned spaceflight in the winter of 1978/1979 but it was a failure.


I'm glad wiki takes the moon hoax beievers (very) serious.

List of conspiracy theories

:-)
edit on 5-10-2011 by webstra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
...and I think we may say that ATS is the top conspiracy site of the world ?

ALL-TIME LEADING TOPICS ON ATS

Soo...serious it is

Thanks Aussie...and others.

:-)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 



ALL-TIME LEADING TOPICS ON ATS

Soo...serious it is

Thanks Aussie...and others.


Woo-hoo! We beat out "Stargates are real" and "Warning from the Benevolents!"



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by webstra
 



ALL-TIME LEADING TOPICS ON ATS

Soo...serious it is

Thanks Aussie...and others.


Woo-hoo! We beat out "Stargates are real" and "Warning from the Benevolents!"


The two above 'our' site :

1) Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake
2) Whats going on at yellowstone?


Both two very serious subjects.

:-)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I still want to see the full version of this press conference. Did NASA recycle the tapes?





posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Why? Someone had to do it.


reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Not exactly, SJ. My position is that the 400K people with the most knowledge of Apollo on the face of the Earth would all have to be fooled, coerced, or complicit, as well as the millions of unwashed masses. I don't have any comment on their heroism, dedication or patriotism. That's a straw man. So is saying 34K worked for NASA directly, which is still a really big number. The other 300K+ would've been contractors and suchlike, lots and lots of them very smart and aware of the capabilities of what they were working on.

You don't need all of them to decide to expose the hoax, you just need one. What usually happens, however, is that more WBs come out of the woodwork after the first guy.


Just one? Bill Kaysing. Need another? Richard Hoagland. Thank you Sir can you have another? Yes you can.

EDGAR MITCHELL.

There are voices out there speaking, some are louder than others, yet you can't hear them because the signal to noise ratio at NASA is 99% EPO propaganda, Something is going on with the Moon. Never A Straight Answer.

Jarrah White. MoonFaker.



so, Why change the number to "300K" like you just did? How can you delete 100K people from the Sacred Number?? This is the perfect example of how NASA is great whipping up whatever numbers it needs... 400K or 300K no big deal.

NASA had 34,000 on the NASA budget at the height in 1966. And out of those 34,000 people not a single one of them was assigned to organize and catalogue the LO pictures.

NASA preferred to pay a contractor to do it. Which contractor? Bellcomm. Who specifically? Ed Nixon and Farouk El Baz. Why? NASA is a "civilian" government bureaucracy and can't get it's own hands dirty. They leave that dirty work to somebody like, Dick Underwood. Here is Farouk El Baz talking about Dick Underwood:


Dick [Richard W.] Underwood was the photo man at NASA. He was from the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] but joined NASA.


Dick Underwood's explanation of NASA's internal workings:


"Well, don't mention it." So that's the way that sort of worked for years. Nobody brought that idea up. A lot of things weren't mentioned and got away with from that standpoint.


Why would NASA be any different today? Somebody has to do the dirty work.
edit on 10/6/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: snip for length



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Here is NASA's real job : brainwashing by television.




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here is NASA's real job : brainwashing by television.


Here is Jarrah White's real job: being a brainwashed child!




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



NASA had 34,000 on the NASA budget at the height in 1966. And out of those 34,000 people not a single one of them was assigned to organize and catalogue the LO pictures.


But Farouk al Baz fixed all that, even though he was an outside contractor. Why bring in an outside contractor if you're trying to keep something secret? As for the 400,000 figure, apparently you missed this post.


NASA preferred to pay a contractor to do it. Which contractor? Bellcomm. Who specifically? Ed Nixon and Farouk El Baz. Why? NASA is a "civilian" government bureaucracy and can't get it's own hands dirty. They leave that dirty work to somebody like, Dick Underwood. Here is Farouk El Baz talking about Dick Underwood:


Ah, I see. The secret cabal faking the space program had to bring in outsiders because they couldn't get their hands dirty. In your world, they assassinated three of their astronauts on the launch pad, pushed one of their managers and his family in front of a train, but filing the Lunar Orbiter photos was considered "dirty work."

Why did they hire Dick Underwood? Because he had been an aerial photography interpreter since the Second World War. Unlike some people, he could look at a photograph taken from a great height and understand what he was looking at. He was so good at this, that he naturally he went on to work in intelligence. NASA poached him because they considered him the best.


Dick Underwood's explanation of NASA's internal workings:



But we were told, "Don't mention it." And nobody in the news media picked this up. I can't figure that out to save my life, why every picture you released was Buzz Aldrin, because Buzz was mad at Neil, didn't take his picture. Got hundreds of the other eleven guys walked on the Moon, none of number one. Even PAO [Public Affairs Office] for a while thought of, "Why don't we say this picture by the flag is Armstrong? How do you know? You can't see his face or anything."

I said, "Well, there's some nine-year-old kid out there who's a space groupie and he knows every aperture and wire and seam in a spacesuit. The day after you publish it, the New York Times is going to have a letter from a nine-year-old kid saying, 'No, you're wrong. That's Buzz Aldrin.'"


Rather than keep repeating the same propaganda points, why don't you tell us what America needs to do to earn your respect. You keep casting aspersions, but I don't see "where you're coming from." Are you a Marxist who is angry because the Soviets lost the Cold War? An Islamic Fundamentalist who is paid to attack the Great Satan? An anarchist who resents having to have a job and blames it all on the government, any government? What, exactly, is your point, since for the past 200 pages you have been more concerned about American politics than the Moon landings? Would you be as "skeptical" if it were the Soviets who got there first? And what difference would that have made to history? Would the Soviets not have invaded Afghanistan if they reached the Moon first? Would there still be a Soviet Union if Apollo had failed? Why is this so important that you are desperate to stir up as much irrelevant muck as possible?
edit on 6-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Anybody want to take a shot at the lighting on Armstrong's helmet?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I know that this is Apollo 11 because of the huge Apollo 11 shadow on the surface of the moon. It's down there in the bottom left in case you can't see it.

Apollogists?




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Anybody want to take a shot at the lighting on Armstrong's helmet?


Of course! This shows how desperate you are: you had to find a scan of a newspaper with a black and white still from the 16mm DAC to use as evidence. This photograph appeared a week after splashdown. The NASA photolab had to take a 16mm frame, blow it up, print it in B&W so that it could be processed by the primitive scanning and transmission technology of the time, send it over a teletype where it was received by the Palm Beach Post, where it was then converted into a format that could be printed by the photogravure process used by newspapers at the time. In other words, its useless.

Let's take a look at the primary source, shall we?



It's much easier to see what's going on. What is intriguing is that the light on Armstrong is extremely even, as though he is being illuminated by the landscape surrounding him. The only shadow, most of the time, is the crown of the helmet. This is because it is directed away from the illuminated landscape toward the black sky. Notice how brightly he blooms when he reaches the edge of the LM's shadow; this is because he is tall enough to catch the direct rays of the Sun's light even while his lower parts are still in shadow. Also notice how extremely over-exposed the surrounding landscape is; the Moon has a low albedo so the reflected light in the shadow was not very bright. Exposing the astronaut properly washed out the fully illuminated landscape. It also becomes clear that the three points of light running diagonally across the newspaper photo are instrument lights reflected in the LM window. Aldrin occasionally eclipses these as he moves about.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I know that this is Apollo 11 because of the huge Apollo 11 shadow on the surface of the moon. It's down there in the bottom left in case you can't see it.

Apollogists?






Unfortunately, well fortunately, thats not a shadow on the surface of the moon.
Whoever ran that paper probably got shoddy copies and couldnt tell what was going on:





The dark area in the lower left is not a huge shadow on the lunar surface but is one of the LM thrusters. (It is so close to the camera that it is out of focus.) For an idea of the scale of this picture, the distance from the center of Maskelyne to the landing site is 210 km. -D.E.W.

www.astrosurf.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I know that this is Apollo 11 because of the huge Apollo 11 shadow on the surface of the moon. It's down there in the bottom left in case you can't see it.


Now you're just being silly. You really need to read that link about photogravure. Let's look at the primary source again:



AS11-37-5437

Now let's look at a photograph taken from the same window a few moments later:



AS11-37-5439

Yes, your "shadow" is one of the LM's thruster quads. But it has been most illuminating as to how the "Moon Hoax" got started. In the early 1970's, images from the missions were printed in newspapers and magazines using a process that created artifacts or lost important detail, leading people to think that they had spotted an "anomaly." This is what charlatans like His Holiness Bill Kaysing sought to exploit. With digital access to primary materials, there is no excuse for this sort of nonsense today.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Unfortunately, well fortunately, thats not a shadow on the surface of the moon.
Whoever ran that paper probably got shoddy copies and couldnt tell what was going on:


Well done, have a star!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Harrison Schmitt is a geologist who walked on the Moon in 1972. He does not believe in man-made global warming (he refers to himself as a "denier") and he does not believe that the Moon formed out of the Earth. Schmitt believes in the "moon capture" theory.


SCHMITT: ...it now seems unlikely that the Moon formed as a result of a giant asteroid impact on the Earth but rather was captured after forming independently as a small planet in the same part of the solar system. Source www.ig.utexas.edu...
See page titled "Apollo 17 Lunar Exploration and Its Implications, Harrison H. Schmitt, Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison".



In 1909, an astronomer with the all-American name of Thomas Jefferson Jackson See proposed that the moon was a wandering planet that had been snared by Earth's gravity, like a fly in a spider web. Source PBS www.pbs.org...


HOWEVER. MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 5



Jarrah White has shown in his video series of excellence that the similarities between earth rock and moon rock are to obvious to ignore.


...the Earth and moon have remarkably similar characteristics. Studies of radiogenic elements and isotopes in lunar rocks reveal that the two bodies are roughly the same age, 4.5 billion years old. They also came from the same neighborhood: Unlike those in all meteorites ever analyzed, the nonradioactive, stable isotopes of oxygen in moon and Earth rocks match like blood types, implying the two spheres formed at the same radial distance from the sun. Indeed, results from Apollo showed the pair to be more intimately connected than previously thought. "Apollo tied together for the first time the history of the moon with the history of the Earth," says William Hartmann of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona. "It showed us that we live in a system, the Earth-moon system." Source PBS www.pbs.org...


Harrison Schmitt is has developed a conspiracy theory that explains how the environmental movement was taken over by the Communists of the former Soviet Union



Likewise, in a 2009 interview with conservative talk-radio host Alex Jones, Schmitt asserted a link between Soviet Communism and the American environmental movement: "I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement." Source Wikipedia


Schmitt is slightly intoxicated with his own biased belief system which confuses "environmentalism" with a communist's agenda. Does his anti-communist, anti-environmentalist belief system get in the way of his scientific conclusions? Was he selected as an astronaut because of his rabid anti-communism?


edit on 10/6/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Harrison Schmitt is a geologist who walked on the Moon in 1972.



Enough said....Thank You !!


Harrison "Jack" Schmitt flew on Apollo 17....one of the last of TWELVE persons (men, sorry ladies
...you will soon have your chance ) to be part of the histotic Apollo missions, and to actually have been there, on the Moon.

Thank you for proving this fact, even if unintentionally.. MOST of us on this planet have understood this to be an actual fact, for all these decades....YOU have just helped to confirm it.

Great work!! Thanks, again......



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


your entire post is appeal to ridicule.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Unfortunately, well fortunately, thats not a shadow on the surface of the moon.
Whoever ran that paper probably got shoddy copies and couldnt tell what was going on:


Well done, have a star!


Speaking of stars... how long of an exposure would you have to take to get stars in a picture, if you were in space, orbiting the moon, pointing your camera into deep space, away from the light of the moon and the earth and the sun... what are the exposure settings for a Hasselblad that would result in a picture that showed stars?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Ed Nixon at Bellcomm hired Farouk El Baz in 1967. NASA contracted to Bellcomm in 1967 to catalogue and study the Lunar Orbiter photographs from 66-67.

Farouk El Baz was operating without a mandate within the NASA upper echelons during this time. NASA has a lot of fancy titles for Apollo managers but PI, principal investigator, is a hefty title. Farouk El Baz was a PI during Apollo and in his oral history he admits that he was also operating outside his mandates.


Wright: You were named a principal investigator [PI] for the orbital visual observations and photography experiment for Apollo 15 and 17. Did that change your role, or did that just give you more of a title?

El-Baz: No, actually, I was doing that informally without NASA making me—because anybody that required time on the Apollo missions was a PI, a principal investigator, or else why NASA would allow time to do such and such? It was principal investigators that applied with a proposal and the proposal accepted and NASA gave the money to make whatever he needed, then it becomes part of the mission and therefore the flight planners would allow the time for the mission. Here I was, a little guy, taking time from the mission and putting things in the flight plan, and I had no official position. It was when [M.] Gene Simmons was the chief scientist at JSC and they were looking through all of the principal investigators. He said, “Goddamn it. What is Farouk? What’s he been doing? You can’t have him doing this on his own like that. He’s got to be a principal investigator or something.”

So they said, “Well, we can make him principal investigator of visual observations and photography.” They made it official because I was functioning without a mandate. The flight planners were responding to me without mandates. I was supposed to be just a geologist at Bellcomm at NASA Headquarters doing what NASA Headquarters needs. I had no role at JSC. Source Farouk El Baz oral history www.jsc.nasa.gov...





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 594  595  596    598  599  600 >>

log in

join