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: 660
377
<< 657  658  659    661  662  663 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Stop Apollogizing will you? Look at these shadows and explain to everyone how the image has been digitally enhanced. I want you to explain every step of the digital enhancement process.

This goes to Psyko as well and anyone who thinks they can explain the black square pixels that NASA says is a flag.



But I already know how you will talk down in a condescending way to tell me that I don't understand about digital images and you will claim that I converted the image (yes, it is true I converted the image because you cannot upload .tifs to ATS).

So, getting around the predictable arguments, why don't you explain the why the "flag" looks like somebody dropped 4 or 5 black square pixels into an image and used annotation software to point it out??? Eh???




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
I would like to know where people think the moon hoax was filmed? Was it indoors? If so, where are they hiding the gigantic building that was big enough to encompass the equivalent of what is basically a small mountain range in the background? Then maybe they filmed it outdoors? If so, how were they able to completely black out the sky? And whether it was indoors or outdoors, how were they able to light up the vast landscape so brightly and yet manage to not get any atmospheric lighting distortions such as hazing, refraction, light rays, etc.

Also, what kind of crazy huge lights did they use. I don't see any drop off of light at a distance. Meaning the ground is lit up the same on the hills in the background as it is in the foreground. That would be just about impossible with an atmosphere, and still really hard without one unless you were using something like, oh, the SUN.

I would REALLY like to hear your explanations. I can't wait.

edit on 17-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)


I will re-post this on this page beings I really want to see the answers and I want this to get maximum exposure.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


You want answers but you really want confirmation for your beliefs.
Such is the way with beliefs. Beliefs are strange things. Astronauts believe strange things, too. Why don't you ask Edgar Mitchell? He believes that the government is covering up the Roswell incident. Do you believe him?

And these are the only 12 men who can claim to have walked on the Moon. Other than these 12 men, the Apostles of Apollo, there is nobody who can make the claim. NOBODY. Not even NASA




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Bloop...bloop...bloop




Originally posted by FoosM

Could this sequence have been filled in one the training tanks?



If its snow, its some weird snow.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki
how were they able to light up the vast landscape so brightly and yet manage to not get any atmospheric lighting distortions such as hazing, refraction, light rays, etc.


Light Rays, those can be explained away.

Example:These are not beams of light passing through dust on set, they are film flaws, and lunar dust kicked up by the lander and stuff:





They could be caused by light entering through small holes in the studio, but that would mean we faked the moonwalk so the beams must therefore be caused something else... anything else.

God Bless America.


Edit:

I suppose I should introduce you to the "The Giant Inflatable Quonset Hut Theory" . It might help to address some of the logistical concerns you have vis-a-vis, the how's and whens:

< br />
The above Apollo image is AS17-136-20758.

What appears to be features of an inflatable quonset hut can be explained away as a development error or film flaw.

Either of these 'prosaic' explanations will gain support, so feel free to switch between them - or use both at the same time for the shear joy of the act.


edit on 17-11-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 


You want answers but you really want confirmation for your beliefs.
Such is the way with beliefs. Beliefs are strange things. Astronauts believe strange things, too. Why don't you ask Edgar Mitchell? He believes that the government is covering up the Roswell incident. Do you believe him?



Let's put it this way.



I love the X-files, and that poster describes it beautifully. I like the idea of UFO's, and Aliens, and the whole government cover-up etc, but I also see both sides of the story, which is why I remain split 50/50 on the issue. There are some pretty credible sources that have claimed to see some impossible things in the sky and on radar, as well as many a photo/video that remains unexplained (even amongst the multitudes of fakes out there), but there is also lot's of evidence to the contrary, and lot's of crazy theory's out there as well.

The moon hoax on the other hand is completely different. Like I said, I always look at both sides of the story, and I have done that with the moon hoax conspiracy as well, but unlike the UFO/Alien conspiracy, there is undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon, you just have to come back to reality and open your eyes.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Bloop...bloop...bloop





That really looks like he had some cookie crumbs in the folds of his suit and when he moved his garment in a certain way the cookie crumbs were floating to the top of the water tank.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble[



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


A plausible explanation for what we see in that gif is that the PLSS pack is venting air and water to regulate temperature.

And that what looks like bubbles is actually small pieces of ice - which form rapidly in shadow - being discharged from the pack/from around the valves.



*Anyone who says otherwise hates America and loves godless communism.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki which is why I remain split 50/50 on the issue. ... [snip] there is undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon, you just have to come back to reality and open your eyes.


Well you just contradicted yourself there Johnny. Care to elaborate? We are all ears



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*Anyone who says otherwise hates America and loves godless communism.


I like how you added that with an asterisk*.

One of the main points that I have is that the Apollo lunar landings all took place under Richard Nixon's presidency. And that deserves many asterisks **********



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki which is why I remain split 50/50 on the issue. ... [snip] there is undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon, you just have to come back to reality and open your eyes.


Well you just contradicted yourself there Johnny. Care to elaborate? We are all ears


Re-read my post. I clearly said I was 50/50 split on the UFO/Alien conspiracy, not the Moon Hoax theory.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM


So one is 1 foot six inches tall, the other is about 3 feet tall.


Or, was I not emphatic enough? (Sometimes without inflection, in one's writing, nuances can be overlooked. "Shouting" is frowned upon, so maybe emphasis is needed?)

Read it again. Pay attention to each word, go slowly if need be so it will sink in.

Also, just use reason, and look at the darn thing! (Hint....when packed, it was not "set-up" as you see...the legs are detachable!)


So the three foot tall camera, they used on the fake moon set, is actually more than three feet tall?
So then, how tall was it?




Because if you are saying its 3 feet without the legs, that makes it significantly taller than the one on display at the Museum. So how do you explain that?

(And the legs didnt detach, they folded. It would be kind of stupid for them to have to attach legs on a very expensive camera on a very dusty moon.)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki which is why I remain split 50/50 on the issue. ... [snip] there is undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon, you just have to come back to reality and open your eyes.


Well you just contradicted yourself there Johnny. Care to elaborate? We are all ears


Re-read my post. I clearly said I was 50/50 split on the UFO/Alien conspiracy, not the Moon Hoax theory.


First you are trying to tell me that the you have "undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon" but you still refer to the Moon Hoax as a theory. Can you please be more specific about your belief system? At this point I don't know what you believe.

I believe that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax and a scam.
I believe Apollo is the same thing. I still do not know what you are saying is "undeniable proof" is actually what you say it is. And I do reserve the right to believe what I like so you should not try to convert me to your beliefs system. Just say what you really believe!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
First you are trying to tell me that the you have "undeniable proof that we have landed on the moon" but you still refer to the Moon Hoax as a theory. Can you please be more specific about your belief system? At this point I don't know what you believe.

I believe that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax and a scam.
I believe Apollo is the same thing. I still do not know what you are saying is "undeniable proof" is actually what you say it is. And I do reserve the right to believe what I like so you should not try to convert me to your beliefs system. Just say what you really believe!


Frankly, I don't understand how you moon hoaxers get so confused over the easiest of concepts. How did you graduate high school? Or maybe you didn't, who knows. I know FoosM definitely had some trouble, lol.

Just because we have undeniable proof that we landed on the moon, does not change the fact that it is still a theory to some uneducated people.

And sure, you are allowed to believe that you're a Mermaid if you want to, but I also reserve the right to call you an idiot.

And if you come back and say you never said you were a mermaid, I might have an aneurysm.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Just because we have undeniable proof that we landed on the moon, does not change the fact that it is still a theory to some uneducated people.

And sure, you are allowed to believe that you're a Mermaid if you want to, but I also reserve the right to call you an idiot.

And if you come back and say you never said you were a mermaid, I might have an aneurysm.


Please enjoy your aneurysm.

Well I asked "Just say what you really believe!" but all you delivered were disparaging remarks. Frankly, you do not make a good ambassador for NASA because you completely forgot to show us your undeniable evidence.

Please explain to us how the sky is blue in this NASA publication.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Frankly, I don't understand how you moon hoaxers get so confused over the easiest of concepts. How did you graduate high school? Or maybe you didn't, who knows. I know FoosM definitely had some trouble, lol.


Oh yeah? Really? You know who I am? You know my grades from high school? Who do you work for?
And denigrating people who didn't finish high school? Whats that all about?

Why dont you focus on the answers that were given to your questions? The ones you run away from?
And stop pretending like you know more than the rest of us.

You want to know how they could have faked the landscapes?
Is that a serious question? The same way these guys did it:


How did Kubrick fake his landscapes and planets?


Use your imagination for once.

I understand your problem.
If we didn't land men on the moon, it kind of puts a damper on all the UFO stuff as well.
It means that space travel is practically impossible.
And the government could be using UFO sightings to mask their top secret craft.
So you want to believe... you want to believe in one mythology to support another.

Kind of like, if you believe in God, well then, I guess you have to believe in them all, right?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Use your imagination for once.


So you admit all you have is imagination, not evidence. Should be game over.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Frankly, you do not make a good ambassador for NASA because you completely forgot to show us your undeniable evidence.


And you do not make a very good anti-NASA propagandist because you don't show us evidence of any kind. Do you really think that the cover of a GPO publication is evidence of anything?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I believe that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax and a scam.


Based on what? A single document that may have been forged under the orders of Richard M. Nixon? Most historians, including both American and Viet Namese, agree that the Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened. The disagreement is entirely over things like where, exactly, the ships were and who fired first. If you believe that the entire thing was a hoax, you are delusional.


Just say what you really believe!


Back at you.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 657  658  659    661  662  663 >>

log in

join