Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 661
377
<< 658  659  660    662  663  664 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


Without even bothering to look anything up, let's just compare photos. You show a photo that indicates that the UV telescope was about chest high:



The one in the museum is about chest high:



What is your point? And what does this have to do with the historicity of Apollo? (Never mind Jarrah White.)




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



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 **********



But I never referred to Richard Nixon as the devil.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



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:


Except, of course, that a giant inflatable structure needs internal pressure to maintain its shape, and even FoosM has to admit that the moon walks were "staged" in a vacuum, remember?




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



If its snow, its some weird snow.


Once again, you're showing your age. In the days before digital television, static caused by background cosmic radiation to a modulated analog signal was called "snow." Can you guess why?




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



You want answers but you really want confirmation for your beliefs.


You are the one that clings to your irrational beliefs with religious fervor.


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?


I believe that he believes that. Neither of us is privy to the truth in that particular matter, although it is clear that they are keeping something secret. Mitchell and I probably disagree on what that is, but it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with his credibility, or the historicity of the lunar landings.


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


You are the most religiously obsessed person on ATS, and there are people here claiming to be Jesus!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I have not seen that specific publication, however, most older printing was done with a 3 color process using ink colors of red, green and blue. Quick study

Black was not usually used because it adds another step and raises the cost of printing. When you mix the three colors together in the proper manner you get a somewhat bluish black. That is a satisfactory explanation for a publication to have an incorrect sky color of the moon.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



*please note on the pie chart where it indicates "Crewed" but there haven't said "6 Crewed" like the other slices of the pie chart. they only say "Crewed".


I hope you didn't dislocate your shoulder reaching for that one.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



But the most important thing about him is not that he is eating and ice cream cone in April 1970 ...


When you need to give a long winded explanation of the image you are using as propaganda, it is not a very effective image. If you intend to continue in your career, you should study the works of the masters:





(c) David Levine



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by mockrock
 


What does the US intend to do when China gets to the moon first.. insist they edit the footage to fit in with the hoax photography?

This is going to be awkward.
edit on 16-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)
It's amazing how hoaxers seem to ignore the fact that they're effectively claiming NASA has fooled or coerced millions of people in many scientific organizations around the world, several of which would've exposed NASA anyway, as well as other space agencies which have sent probes to the moon, and convinced Russia to waste a multi-billion dollar space program for the sake of a few hundred million worth of food, but think that this China mission is going to be the one that blows NASA's duplicity wide open.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


So, it is of no evidentiary relevance to any claims about Apollo, and serves only for purposes of your rhetoric.

Thank you.

I note that you ignore the fact that JAXA and the Indian space agency have both sent probes to the moon and confirmed the past presence and results of NASA. Of course, hoaxers argue, the ones that don't prove NASA wrong were paid off. Even the USSR. It's pretty convenient to ignore contradictory evidence by simply declaring it to be fake without any evidence, then putting up a smoke screen about Nixon which you so despise.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

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?
You're right FoosM. There is absolutely no reason to assume there is a possibility you graduated from high school.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Love the signature btw.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki



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



They only had about 10 feet of set. To fake the moon landing, and get the footage they have, you would need miles of set.



Miles of set... so show us these miles you are talking about.
I still haven't seen it. And prove, that its miles.
And while you are at it, whats so difficult about creating miles of set outdoors?







How did Kubrick fake his landscapes and planets?



Most of the time, he didn't. On the video you presented however, it does look like he did, and I'll tell you how he did it. A back drop. Artists drawing of a landscape cleverly positioned behind actual ground to make it look like it goes on forever. Good for movie sets that require little to no movement, because once you start moving the camera too much you can start to see the lack of any depth perception.



So you are saying the backgrounds behind the dawn of man scenes are real, and some are drawn in?
And that explains the lack of depth perception, lol.
Basically, you dont know how they did it do you?
And we are talking about film made back in the '60's.
Old technology.



Could they have done that on the moon? Sure, for some shots probably, but for the shots that were moving in the rover, it would have been impossible.


Why?






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.


No problem. Like I said, I fully acknowledge the possibility that Aliens are not visiting us. I said I was split 50/50.


So you actually believe that aliens are visiting us. And I suppose you need proof that they are not?
Well why dont you and Capt. Obvious ask them if we humans landed men on the moon?
They should be able to go check the landing sites easy.



UFO's on the other hand are fact based solely on their definition. It doesn't state anywhere that UFO's have to be alien.



UFO's are not interesting topics for conversations if they are not related to extra terrestrials.
So stop hiding behind the definition. Because if you are really making an issue about not being able to identify Earth based aircraft, birds, or bugs, well thats a personal issue you have and it doesn't need to be brought up in this thread.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
[img]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]



Use the scroll bar on the image to look to the right.. The Parallax explanation does not explain the missing LEM

Hoax... notice the matching background.. the LEM should be seen on the bottom photo.. This means the photos were staged, whether the U.S later got to the moon is a different question.

But as you can see hoax/staged photographs.
edit on 17-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki


By the way JS, Im still waiting for you to follow up on this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You disappeared soon after I made it.
Lets see if it was because you had to go do some deep research to identify the fakes from the official fakes.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock

[img]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]


When I asked them about scale, they ran away.
Im glad you are bringing this up again.


see this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-11-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
You're right FoosM. There is absolutely no reason to assume there is a possibility you graduated from high school.


You think its some kind of badge of honor to have graduated from U.S. High School?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



But the most important thing about him is not that he is eating and ice cream cone in April 1970 ...


When you need to give a long winded explanation of the image you are using as propaganda, it is not a very effective image. If you intend to continue in your career, you should study the works of the masters:
David Levine[/url]


So you are saying SJ should have drawn you a picture?
LOL.

I think you should speak for yourself next time,
I got the gist of what SJ was saying with the image.

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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



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?


Without even bothering to look anything up, let's just compare photos. You show a photo that indicates that the UV telescope was about chest high:

The one in the museum is about chest high:

What is your point? And what does this have to do with the historicity of Apollo? (Never mind Jarrah White.)


Whats yours?
Why are you butting into a conversation with this post and then later asking what the point was?
Go back and read the discussion. Its all there.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by mockrock

[img]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]


When I asked them about scale, they ran away.
Im glad you are bringing this up again.



This should be interesting, vanishing LEM... There will be some scientific explanation more akin to voodoo magic!






top topics



 
377
<< 658  659  660    662  663  664 >>

log in

join