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: 663
377
<< 660  661  662    664  665  666 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Especialy for the NASA-cheerleaders....

Misconceptions of the Apollo believers


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




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


I would like to know how you think NASA got the crosshairs behind the objects they're apparently behind? And why? It would be technically harder to get the crosshairs behind and object than in front of it.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


That video is wrong on a multitude of levels.

Just the first "example".....the "crosshairs" (they are properly called fiducials)..

It LIES in the video saying that the claim is the "emulsion" of the film is responsible. IT is NOT the answer, and is a strawman put up by that YouTube author. Sad, really. The YouTube is under the account "hunchbacked"....a fraud on YT, as evidenced by many others who refute those videos hands down.

Only in some cases is the very bright white object so bright that it causes the hairs to "wash out" in the images....actually, it is only in the LOW resolution images. The HIGH-res photos must be used to properly address this misconception.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Since you are so excellent at quote mining can you find where I said that Richard Nixon was the devil?
I will leave this thread alone if you can find a quote by SayonaraJupiter which shows that I used the word "devil" in describing Richard Nixon.


And you are excellent at twisting things out of context. I never said that you called Richard Nixon the devil. What I said was:


I know that people with strong religious beliefs, such as yourself, have a difficult time understanding how more objective people view the world. Your religion preaches that Richard Nixon is the devil, so you are blind to the fact that he ended the war in Viet Nam and established the Environmental Protection Agency.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

But then, you already knew that.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



It LIES in the video saying that the claim is the "emulsion" of the film is responsible. IT is NOT the answer, and is a strawman put up by that YouTube author.


He also lies when he claims that anyone said that the Earth looks small because they used a "wide angle lens." The Earth looks small because it is small... only about two degrees wide if memory serves. The entire video is a string of strawman arguments aimed at the gullible. I'll never be able to listen to Stravinsky again. That video was a crime against music.

Edit to correct musical reference.
edit on 17-11-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Does someone else want to take this one? I'm sick and tired....


Thats basically the core of the problem isnt it?
Now I understand why you throw yourself into debates to have other people make arguments for you


I can see through your thread derailing attention seeking tactics a mile a way.
Im not dealing with you anymore.
Sayonara.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird


And prove, that its miles.


Apollo 15, EVA 2 up above. Drive from Station 6 to Station 6A.



Prove that it travelled for miles.
Dont show me a map NASA put together.




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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by JohnnySasaki

Does someone else want to take this one? I'm sick and tired....


Thats basically the core of the problem isnt it?
Now I understand why you throw yourself into debates to have other people make arguments for you


I can see through your thread derailing attention seeking tactics a mile a way.
Im not dealing with you anymore.
Sayonara.



What did I tell you? I don't even need you anymore. I can write your arguments for you,....or at least predict the dumba** sh!t that you're going to say.

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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
NASA's Apollo myths supports
Creationism and not Evolution!

Where is the Moon Dust?




Its rather obvious that NASA was promoting some type of religious agenda
by calling their space craft and missions after Gods, hiring creationists,
and of course:



The reading of Genesis...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock
 


Okay, mockrock, if you want to play games there need to be rules. One of the rules is that you have to link to the source of the pictures you post. That's not just a rule of the game, that's an ATS Term and Condition. Violating the ATS T&C can get you banned. Now, please, pretty please, what are the mission, magazine and frame numbers for those photos? Oh, and where did that big boulder in the foreground come from? Why aren't you bothered by that?


O.k amigos will get to this on the morrow, good night. Yo really are confused on that photo.. I will have to draw it out for you to show you where the LEM should be on the bottom photo..


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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Great resources here

moonfaker.com...

"Phil Plait for example went as far as alleging that Bill Kaysing denied that any space travel was possible, despite the fact that Kaysing explicitly stated that the shuttle and surveyors were indeed possibilities and that Mercury and Gemini did indeed happen.

Finally having enough of their propaganda and character assassination, I took it upon myself to write up a long, long essay refuting all these pro-NASA websites point-by-point. However, because I like to be absolutely thorough, even when discussing a simple topic, by the time I had finished the essay was the size of a phone book. It also needed to be stripped of certain less than pleasant things I had to say about the propagandists. Back then I had very little tolerance and patience for these individuals, and to this day it’s difficult to comment on their obnoxious defamation and propaganda without getting pi**ed off"

moonfaker.com...


Back to the O.P more info from the young Aussie genius, impressive research and demonstration.. I think how this thread descended into character assassination and insults proves the point well! The only rule in opposition.. attack !! Take some time to watch his videos then revisit this thread...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Now you're just being cruel.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Not really....shame, actually that anyone can fall for the nonsense spewed by JW:


Back to the O.P more info from the young Aussie genius, impressive research and demonstration..




I think how this thread descended into character assassination and insults....


Oh, like an off-topic unhealthy obsession with Richard M. Nixon? Yeah, agree there. And the increasingly off-topic (away from Jarrah White, that is) references to "aulis.com"? The list is long. What was started out, at the beginning of the thread, was solid, and factual refutation of each and every point attempted by Jarrah White, in his videos. The flaws in every one of his claims have been shown.....and, they had to be repeatedly shown, time and again...because certain people dragged it well off, into territory of the absurd often.

When those tactics failed, then the Jarrah White "cheerleaders" came back, many pages later, to re-raise the earlier claims that had already been thoroughly debunked. Every 50 to 100 pages, or so (or less sometimes) the cycle repeats.

The Actual topic, Jarrah White and the allegations of his being a "genius" (he isn't, not in the sense of "whipping NASA") was finished, dead and buried conclusively early on. By the way, the paragraph above about the "coming back" constantly? Partly also the fault of Jarrah White....since he was churning out video after video after video, all inanely wrong, but fodder for his "cheerleaders" to once again fling the poo, for him here.



The only rule in opposition.. attack !!


Bull-oney. The "rule" seen here has been to flood the thread when proven wrong with irrelevant distractions, often with giant posts containing far too many items to address properly. Like a game of "Whack-a-Mole", actually.


Now, as to your "rule in opposition..attack !!" comment? This next factual statement may seem, on its surface, like an "attack" on Jarrah White but -- he (Jarrah) has been far, far worse at "attacking" his opponents over there in the realm where he prefers, YouTube. (Because, he has complete control over the posts that are allowed on any of his videos...he censors everything not complimentary).

At YouTube, not only has he filed numerous false DCMA complaints against other account holders, thus potentially opening himself up to perjury judgments against him, he has been on record elsewhere behaving like a right fool, and childish little punk.

These do not count as "attacks" on his character, since all of these assertions are absolutely true, and verifiable.

For instance, the false DCMAs (Video posted October, 2011):


Now that YouTube has restored all the videos Jarrah White filed false copyright claims against on four channels, it is time for him to do one last decent thing before YouTube bans him.




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Millions of stars. It means that out of thousands of Apollo pictures there should be at least some stars captured in some of the photography - by accidental exposure, planned exposure, or badly framed pictures, etc..

By virtue of the sheer volume of pictures there should be numerous examples of "accidental star photos" from the surface of the moon. Instead, the Apollo photographic record has been systematically wiped clean of all evidence of stars.


As Anders recalled, "Suddenly, we saw millions of stars, more than you could see in a planetarium, to the point where it confused the constellations. So that was rather spectacular. And I remember looking at them because I was interested in astronomy, and then I looked kind of over my left shoulder and suddenly, the stars stopped. And there was this big black void, black hole. And that was the moon! That was the moon shielding the stars and yet not illuminated. It was as black as I've ever seen black. That was the only time in the flight the hair kind of came up on the back of my neck a little bit."


www.pbs.org...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
[SNIP]



o.k enough waffle more substance please.

He beat the myth busters! Cheating the reduced gravity simulation.. By not showing the wires and slow motion combined, their experiment was pointless.

The Aussie genius rascal, then slows the wire footage and.. it is exactly like the 'moon' footage videos!

Come to think of it.. is that you Phil Plait?

Are you watching the same videos.. ? This one to be clear..

www.youtube.com...




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

edit on 18-11-2011 by Gemwolf because: Removed large quote



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
When you define something as 'debunked' that is merely your opinion. I don't think you can ever reach a 100%
debunked factor, because that is subjective.

What you tend to get is elements of truth and fiction in every conspiracy.. For example we now know the Soviets lost 3 men before they got Yuri Gagarin in space.. Before this was just a rumour or conspiracy.

You need to open up and have flexibility in some of your analysis, there are so many problems with the Apollo landings.. a good exercise is to try and argue the case opposite to your opinion.

For me.. I ask surely it would have got out by now? But what if it can't get out? 'truth's protective layers..
Consider both sides.



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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
When you define something as 'debunked' that is merely your opinion. I don't think you can ever reach a 100%
debunked factor, because that is subjective.


Debunking is not subjective - if "evidence" is proved false then that is a facual situation.


What you tend to get is elements of truth and fiction in every conspiracy.. For example we now know the Soviets lost 3 men before they got Yuri Gagarin in space.. Before this was just a rumour or conspiracy.


When was it confirmed? AFAIK it is still just a conspiracy theory



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by mockrock
When you define something as 'debunked' that is merely your opinion. I don't think you can ever reach a 100%
debunked factor, because that is subjective.


Debunking is not subjective - if "evidence" is proved false then that is a facual situation.


What you tend to get is elements of truth and fiction in every conspiracy.. For example we now know the Soviets lost 3 men before they got Yuri Gagarin in space.. Before this was just a rumour or conspiracy.


When was it confirmed? AFAIK it is still just a conspiracy theory



Here you go 3 Russians before Gagarin english.pravda.ru...

There are grave doubts about the "evidence" as none is conclusive, some of the evidence strongly supports the hoax so yes.. subjective.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Those 3 are mentioned in the wiki article as being identified in 1959 by a Czech source, but as you say, no other evidence has ever been found.

FYI:


Purported Czech information leak

In December 1959, an alleged high-ranking Czech Communist leaked information about many purported unofficial space shots. Aleksei Ledovsky was mentioned as being launched inside a converted R-5A rocket, two more names of alleged cosmonauts claimed to have perished under similar circumstances were Andrei Mitkov, Sergei Shiborin and Marya Gromova.[2] Also in 1959, pioneering space theoretician Hermann Oberth claimed that a pilot had been killed on a sub-orbital ballistic flight from Kapustin Yar in early 1958. He provided no source for the story.[3] In December 1959, the Italian news agency Continentale repeated the claims that a series of cosmonaut deaths on suborbital flights had been revealed by a high-ranking Czech communist. No other evidence of Soviet sub-orbital manned flights ever came to light.[2]



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Oh those millions of stars I gaze upon when I leave to work at 10:00. So beatiful and shiny... in my imagination.
Million, Billion, what does that have to do with anything?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 660  661  662    664  665  666 >>

log in

join