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: 69
377
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest
 

There is no indication that the reporter is talking about actually seeing anything.


When someone says "I saw x" that is that not by definition an indication that they saw x? Not only did the BBC host say "we saw the separation" but as you mention he proceeded to use visual imagery. That added visual imagery only adds to the indication that he saw the separation.

You are right only that he *could* have been exaggerating about what was actually seen, and since it isn't clear whether or not he was using a metaphor its only fair to say that the statement is inconclusive. Only looking at actual BBC footage could clear up the matter.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


Have we not PROVED that JW assumptions re the photographs are BULLS*^T.
Do you really think anything else he claims is true!

Or is it time for more challenges





I've already decided to evaluate each and every significant claim made by Jarrah White in the entire Moonfaker series. So, it doesn't matter whether I think every single point will turn out false. If the series can get 200 flags, then it deserves a full review.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 

First, to clarify, it is obvious that there are non-sequential portions of video inserted into the CBS documentary at various points this is seen throughout. There is the scene in which we see the CSM as viewed from the LM. The only color movie camera carried onboard the LM during the mission was the 16mm DAC movie camera so it is clear that this segment was inserted for the documentary. During the time when Cronkite is talking about the undocking, the voice transmission is live and matches the transcripts of what occurred after signal reaquisition. The 16mm footage of the actual event has been inserted.

There was no live television transmission of the undocking. The BBC announcer was speaking figuratively; we saw it in our mind's eye, we saw it in simulations (funky ones).


[edit on 5/23/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by FoosM

You really haven't provided straight-forward answers to my questions. Seeing that you have tried, I assume you'd like to finish what you started.

1. where did the men who rode atop the Saturn V boosters of Apollos XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, AND XVII go for a week or so at a time?
----

ELO or down the escape hatch before launch (yes there was one)


Which one is it? No guessing allowed; you have this all figured out, right? Who made the call, the astronauts or the director? Was the hatch used on XI,XII,XIII,XIV, XV, XVI, AND XVII; or just some and not others?

And if the latter, please provide the diagram for the hatch, and recovery process, since you make an affirmative statatement that "there was one." Who parachuted to the ocean at mission-end, and from what were they dropped?

And if the latter, did they roast my former neighbor, Ed White, in Apollo 1 for nothing, or was that just to set up some scenario for the future. I attended Ed's funeral with his widow. She didn't seem to be faking grief, same for Mrs. Grissom and Chaffee.

2. why did we pretend to almost kill the three men who rode atop the Saturn V booster of Apollo XIII?
----

Probably Drama & Distraction with a hint of: nobody will ever believe us if every mission went perfect


I see nothing funny in burning three astronauts, fathers husbands and brothers alive to perpetuate a hoax.


Or... or, maybe the astronauts didnt want to lie about being on the moon.


What do you mean,"probably," or "Or ...or," you either know this and can prove it or you are making up more trash to fill in the holes of your "theories." You've started to try, now pick an answer and prove it.

After the real disaster of Apollo/Saturn204(Apollo I), why would we need to fake another tragedy? And why wouldn't these guys have used the "hatch" like everyone else?


Please, any of you who follow this line of thought, let me hear what the whole "alternative mission" consisted of. Add in the identities and motivations of the co-conspirators in other countries who verified or relayed contact with the orbiting astronauts as they were not going to the moon and back.
----

See previous post on S bands


The"s bands" crap is based on assumptions that hams wanted to TALK, they didn't.

You and I or anyone else can LISTEN to any band or any transmissions for which we have the antennae and receivers to catch and decode the signals. So who pretended to be listening to missions that went out the hatch?
Who pretended to pick up signals following TLO until splashdown?

That is not an answer, as many listeners/trackers were involved. I'd like to know which are co-hoaxers and which were innocent bystanders. If your "escape hatch" is real, then there shouldn't have been ANY third-party observers. So, for the "hatch" missions, who lied?
Pick an answer and stick with it.

3. what exactly did the US accomplish, or hope to have accomplished until you exposed them, by hoaxing 6 "successful" landings and 1 near-tragedy?
----

Commercial space dominance, cover for MOL and Corona, neutralizing public fears, distraction from vietnam, dominant in science community, more tax dollars from citizens, offshoot or dual technology for space based spy and military satellites, rocket technology, etc etc


What "commercial space" was there to dominate in 1969? What "science" or "dual technology" can be derived from faked space launches? Again, you throw out alternate possibilities without any support.

Do not speculate when you know the answer. Pick an answer and support it.

4. if the "missions" were intended to be hoaxes, do you consider them to have been "successes" or failures, since you have now discovered the truth?
----

Of course... read you history books and see above.

If you consider them successes, then what will happen now in light of the exposure of the hoax? Have you notified A.G. Holder, or Sec. Chu, or the in-coming NASA administrators? Shouldn't they be eager to blame more junk on previous teams?

You really haven't provided straight-forward answers to my questions. Seeing that you have tried, I assume you'd like to finish what you started.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by jdub297]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by truthquest
 


Have we not PROVED that JW assumptions re the photographs are BULLS*^T.
Do you really think anything else he claims is true!

Or is it time for more challenges





I've already decided to evaluate each and every significant claim made by Jarrah White in the entire Moonfaker series. So, it doesn't matter whether I think every single point will turn out false. If the series can get 200 flags, then it deserves a full review.



No from what has been proved about this guy what does it say about some members on here that it gets 200 flags


If you could take the people here who believe in the Moon hoax
to the Moon to see for themselves they would say that was faked as well.

All the stuff he claims is a REHASH by him of stuff debunked MANY TIMES before I loved the moonboot print video he did that really showed what an A**HOLE he is!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Iwasas
 


I didn't ignore you. I was moving and switching from my laptop to my desktop and honestly didn't see your post till now.

Well perhaps Jarrah is wrong but as I said, from the data he looked at I can see where he drew his conclusion from.


So Jarrah made a simple mistake. Fine, he doesn't understand Ham radio. But the problem is that when his mistake is pointed out to him, he not only doesn't retract the claim, he repeats it while moving the goalposts.


How do they say? never attribute to malice that wich can be explained by stupidity. But in this case I have a hard time.
First of all sending != recieving should be pretty obvious to anybody who, say tried to record a scene in his livingroom with his TV.
Second if he really missunderstood he would have danced around the word "recieve" like he did.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest
 

There is no indication that the reporter is talking about actually seeing anything.


When someone says "I saw x" that is that not by definition an indication that they saw x? Not only did the BBC host say "we saw the separation" but as you mention he proceeded to use visual imagery. That added visual imagery only adds to the indication that he saw the separation.


Correct: When I say "I saw a bird" I propably have seen a bird.
But when I talk to an audience and say
"we saw all evidence for a moon hoax fall apart" the we becomes a metaphor, not an actual group, and so does the seeing.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
....it looks NOTHING like what you posted. Looks like you've been nailed again.


Dang, Tom and JRA beat me to the final sword thrust on that one.

Indeed, FoosM has been nailed AGAIN. Because folks seem to like images, here's one showing what FoosM did:

Now, as I explained earlier - and as a moderator has now pointed out to him
- it is IMPORTANT to cite your stuff. And if you have done any post-processing, you MUST declare it and explain what and why you did it.

Now because FoosM refuses to cite the image, we must assume it is HIS, so the deliberate post-processing exaggeration must have been intended to deceive..

As shown in that image, I totally agree that the editing on the NON-original-source images is lousy, but this is not an original SOURCE image (am I repeating myself?), so the implication made by FoosM is false and misleading, and it is clear he does not know how to find those elusive original scans..


PS - I'm happy to have a go at outdoing nasa's editing job on that image, if anyone's interested. And I'll include a step by step description of how I do it. Unlike FoosM, I want my post-processing to be obvious, repeatable, and NOT deceitful.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM
[
Oh you wish

You cant see the cut&paste job on the original, get glasses or a better computer screen then




You tried to pass of some dodgy looking fake as a legit Apollo photo. Why else would you even post it? What does it allegedly show?

Busted yet again.


The photo that FoosM linked to does have some bad editing. The empty black space around the Earth was made to be pure black by some one. However, FoosM, this is not evidence of a hoax as the untouched versions can still be found.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

You can request the highres .jpg on this site. Normally you might have to wait 5 mins for it to appear on the server, but I've already requested it, so it should be ready to go by the time I post this. Take a look at it and see if you see the same editing.

I like getting photos from this site as there is nothing done to the images at all. Not even some basic colour correction. Which is why the photos look a bit washed out.



Well that indeed is a nice site.
Alright, I will at this time retract any comments I made about those particular photos.
If indeed LPI is not a source one can use to truly study the photography I wont use it as a source anymore, because many of those photos are dodgy. Be it from scanning issues or purposeful editing they are raising more questions than offering answers.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I'm not trying to take post away from this thread, but you guys seem to like to debate photos.. I have started a thread on Marcus Allen's take on the photos.. but no one has replied.. perhaps some of you would like to look at this info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

1. where did the men who rode atop the Saturn V boosters of Apollos XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, AND XVII go for a week or so at a time?
----
ELO or down the escape hatch before launch (yes there was one)




What is an ELO?

And where was the "escape hatch"?


ELO is a symphonic rock group from Birmingham, United Kingdom...

Yeah sorry, I meant Low Earth Orbit.

Escape hatch/chute:



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by FoosM

You really haven't provided straight-forward answers to my questions. Seeing that you have tried, I assume you'd like to finish what you started.

1. where did the men who rode atop the Saturn V boosters of Apollos XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, AND XVII go for a week or so at a time?
----

ELO or down the escape hatch before launch (yes there was one)


Which one is it? No guessing allowed; you have this all figured out, right? Who made the call, the astronauts or the director? Was the hatch used on XI,XII,XIII,XIV, XV, XVI, AND XVII; or just some and not others?

And if the latter, please provide the diagram for the hatch, and recovery process, since you make an affirmative statatement that "there was one." Who parachuted to the ocean at mission-end, and from what were they dropped?

And if the latter, did they roast my former neighbor, Ed White, in Apollo 1 for nothing, or was that just to set up some scenario for the future. I attended Ed's funeral with his widow. She didn't seem to be faking grief, same for Mrs. Grissom and Chaffee.

2. why did we pretend to almost kill the three men who rode atop the Saturn V booster of Apollo XIII?
----

Probably Drama & Distraction with a hint of: nobody will ever believe us if every mission went perfect


I see nothing funny in burning three astronauts, fathers husbands and brothers alive to perpetuate a hoax.



blah blah blah...




So that was your attempt at a trap?
Sorry, I dont have time to play your games.
If you want to debate points be straight forward about it.

Nobody has all the answers, these are theories, speculations, interpretations on facts and here say. And you know it.

So if you have any new proof that man went to the moon that hasn't already been debunked, bring it on.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
The so-called "Moon Landing" was presented to the global public via the "idiot box" of the day nearly on every channel.

This is the same "idiot box" that now delivers the 'bio-programming' that attempts to defend and support the "official" government moon story.

It is nearly pointless to have a conversation with a biological program and expect to enguage in intelligent discourse. And, it is just a pointless to fill an already full cup.

Note: TPTB are freaking out because more and more people are turning off the "idiot box" and dialing into forums like this. The "idiot" programming is slowing starting to wear off as the great human mass slowly awakens from a deep trance.



PSY-OP AWARNESS TEST:

Was Nasa's Moon Landing a Hoax? If you don't know the correct answer to this question, its time to watch American Idol fool.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gold_Bug
The so-called "Moon Landing" was presented to the global public via the "idiot box" of the day nearly on every channel.

This is the same "idiot box" that now delivers the 'bio-programming' that attempts to defend and support the "official" government moon story.

It is nearly pointless to have a conversation with a biological program and expect to enguage in intelligent discourse. And, it is just a pointless to fill an already full cup.

Note: TPTB are freaking out because more and more people are turning off the "idiot box" and dialing into forums like this. The "idiot" programming is slowing starting to wear off as the great human mass slowly awakens from a deep trance.



PSY-OP AWARNESS TEST:

Was Nasa's Moon Landing a Hoax? If you don't know the correct answer to this question, its time to watch American Idol fool.


Your completely content free posting is rather ironic.

But in a way I agree, it is worrying that there are so many fools on the internet with insufficient knowledge to recognise a bulldung artist like Jarrah White, and the other pseudo-researchers who push the ridiculously ill-informed Apollo denial.

Those that post handwaving, insulting, content-free posts like the above should really check the mirror.

But it is worth mentioning this..

As an oldsalt when it comes to watching the apollo deniers, it's very obvious that the numbers of threads like this one have dwindled significantly over the last few years, particularly since Chandrayaan, Jaxa/Selene/Kaguya and of course, LRO.

But perhaps more importantly, it is VERY pleasing to note that even on the most virulent conspiracy forums, the Apollo deniers are now notably outnumbered by those who very obviously DO have the requisite knowledge, and who pass it on. Whether it be photo-/video-grammetry, communications, physics, orbital science, maths, geometry, or just the simple ability to actually READ or do real research - these folk are making sure that the truth can be found by those who wish to actually use their brains.


Apollo deniers no longer get away with their foolishness. And when they cheat, they get exposed.

That's a good thing.


(Worth noting that WWu777 STILL hasn't returned, despite posting elsewhere...)



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Funny enough i haven't had a TV for 10 years now.
Programming must be strong i suposse.
Maybe its because I dont spend enough time on youtube?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm not trying to take post away from this thread, but you guys seem to like to debate photos.. I have started a thread on Marcus Allen's take on the photos.. but no one has replied.. perhaps some of you would like to look at this info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Twelve videos of 10 minutes each???

I'm sorry, but this "argument by youtube" is both aggravating and tiring. Don't let someone else do your debating for you. Pick out an example he brings up, link to it (using alsj or other resources) and tell us what is wrong with the picture. As you have already seen, there are a number of photographers on here who, while tending to be a bit cranky, will help you understand why a picture appears as it does.

BTW, it would probably be best to do it on your thread to keep this monstrosity from becoming any more out of hand.

I greatly look forward to your first submission.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gold_Bug
The so-called "Moon Landing" was presented to the global public via the "idiot box" of the day nearly on every channel.

This is the same "idiot box" that now delivers the 'bio-programming' that attempts to defend and support the "official" government moon story.

It is nearly pointless to have a conversation with a biological program and expect to enguage in intelligent discourse. And, it is just a pointless to fill an already full cup.

Note: TPTB are freaking out because more and more people are turning off the "idiot box" and dialing into forums like this. The "idiot" programming is slowing starting to wear off as the great human mass slowly awakens from a deep trance.



PSY-OP AWARNESS TEST:

Was Nasa's Moon Landing a Hoax? If you don't know the correct answer to this question, its time to watch American Idol fool.


I find this rambling, incoherent post fascinating only because of its total self-unawareness.

Here we are being lectured on believing what was on the "idiot box", when it is the hoax believers on the thread who, by-and-large, are unable to articulate a plausible hoax argument and instead insist on forwarding their arguments via clips on the new "idiot box", youtube.

Oh, the irony......



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm not trying to take post away from this thread, but you guys seem to like to debate photos.. I have started a thread on Marcus Allen's take on the photos.. but no one has replied.. perhaps some of you would like to look at this info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Twelve videos of 10 minutes each???

I'm sorry, but this "argument by youtube" is both aggravating and tiring. Don't let someone else do your debating for you. Pick out an example he brings up, link to it (using alsj or other resources) and tell us what is wrong with the picture. As you have already seen, there are a number of photographers on here who, while tending to be a bit cranky, will help you understand why a picture appears as it does.

BTW, it would probably be best to do it on your thread to keep this monstrosity from becoming any more out of hand.

I greatly look forward to your first submission.



Less of the cranky you *&^%$ what £$%%^ right do you have to say we are $%^*(* cranky


Going to have a look at 1-6 at some point today no noubt others will as well.

Hope is not a total rehash of the same points.

Had a quick look he may have made a few assunptions



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Hope is not a total rehash of the same points.



It is.

The LLRV was never successfully landed.

The Soviets were WAY ahead of us.

There was no independent tracking of the Apollo missions.

It's awful stuff.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
The LLRV was never successfully landed.

That one's becoming my favorite!

Yeah, never, not once...

Oh, wait...:
www.archive.org...

By the way, has anyone seen WWu777??


I have some questions for him about the LLRV, and how many successful flights it had. It was an amazing machine, and for it to operate so well in 6x (that's SIX TIMES) the easy gravity in which the real thing was going to 'float' down in...
And of course the LLRV got buffeted about in winds....

Like I said, it was amazing that it didn't crash more often than it did - it actually had quite an impressive safety record.

Anyway, when WWu777 comes back I'm sure he'd like to quote the figures - total number of flights, total mishaps, injuries, deaths?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join