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: 74
377
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



even Shatner thought using a sextant in space was ridiculous


You do realize he's an actor, not an actual starship captain, don't you?




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Here: Compare and contrast:
Prop from "Star Trek"
www.christies.com...
Apollo sextant:
www.ion.org...

What do you know about celestial navigation that you find it so funny?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Question for the likes of FoosM. Its been stated numerous times in this thread that in order to hoax the Apollo landings, there would have needed to be a significant effort on the part of NASA to stage the video, radio signals etc. No one has disputed this (the only argument has been whether it was more difficult to stage a hoax or do the real deal).

So, where is the unedited footage? Where are the props? Why have none of the production crew come out and told their story? Any physical evidence at all of a studio? It would have taken a mammoth effort to produce the film and photographs that have been amassed from Apollo missions and yet any and all evidence has (apparently) been wiped clean.

While people quibble over whether a photograph is fake or not, no one has actually presented any physical evidence that tpoints to a hoax. All they can do is try and pick holes in what NASA has presented (and do a rather poor job of it).

So, where is the evidence?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by zvezdar
 
But what about the young Aussie genius




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by dragnet53
uh oh did shatner expose something and didn't even realize it?







even Shatner thought using a sextant in space was ridiculous


An underlying theme on this long thread has been how the rise of TV in the past few generations has hurt the ability of children, and thus later on adults, to properly process information, i.e. learn. Comments have been made that the abundance of youtube videos used in place of actual arguments prove that, unless something is placed in an easily-digested video, many people are unable to understand the topic at hand, and then, they are so completely incurious that they automatically believe what they see, and take it at face value as truth.

Then along comes dragnet and Foos from a short exile to prove, by confusing TV fantasy with reality, that whole idea absolutely true.

Questions I know will never be answered but will ask them anyway:

Dragnet: Why would William Shatner be in any position to know what NASA does?

Foos:What qualifications does William Shatner possess that make what he thinks about sextants useful information?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by torch2k
One thing that strikes me about this thread is not so much the content of the JW videos,
------

Obviously not because most Apollo propagandist dont want to touch his videos even though the thread is about him. They rather make sweeping allegations of that his research is invalid, poorly done, or previously debunked. Or better yet, make comments about how Youtube videos are invalid as information sources, yet they cite... "I was there watching with millions the moon landing, how could it been faked?'



but the references it has led to. And I don't mean the NASA references, but the references to other hoax 'researchers'.

It's taken a while, but as most who address the claims of someone like Jarrah White are used to, this thread has led to the inevitable references to claims by the likes of Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, Jack White, etc. Why? Because although supporters might tout Jarrah as being groundbreaking and original, all of his material is cribbed from others.
-----
And this is a problem why?
Secondly, you conveniently exclude NASA then claim he gets his material from other researchers.
when in fact many of his videos actually cite propagandists and NASA and uses one to contradict the other.
Third, what are your sources? Clavius?



Sure, he's done it up nicely and plunked it onto YouTube, but he's not presenting anything new; and, when those who refute his claims state this material has all been debunked before, they generally mean that the original claimants' cases had been dismissed ages ago.
-------

awwwww



Some observations on this:

1. To his credit, JW seems to have a good understanding of the YouTube generation; make it look good, present it as an investigation, and focus on asking questions rather than answering them. Despite his distinctive, nasal twang, he still reminds me of Eric Cartman's "I'm just asking questions!" This isn't research, it's pandering to an audience he believes will accept a total lack of verifiable conclusions if the videos look good and accusations seem damning.
----------

What a meaningless observation. What else you got?




2. If JW is carrying on the work of others who've clearly failed to make a clear, defensible case for a fraud, then why hasn't he addressed the issues raised by those who've challenged his predecessors? Not only is his work unoriginal, but so is his responses to challenges, and his tactics in the face of rebuttals/refutations? If he's such a genius, why does he fail to see that tactics that have failed in the past are unlikely to succeed now?
---------

What!? Do you happen to watch his videos with your eyes closed, fingers in your ears yelling "laalaalaalaalalaaa" ? What else you got?


3. The material he's re-re-hashing goes back more than 30 years now. His fans may enjoy his continued flogging of this horse, but opponents continue to be annoyed by one huge, unanswered question. Where is this all headed?
-----

The fall of NASA and as you have noticed, its working.



One would expect, if the moon landings were hoaxed, some convergence over the decades. The evidence would first point to inarguable proof of wrong-doing, then unambiguously identify certain perpetrators of the hoax, then follow the trail of evidence to their handlers, then blow the whole scam wide open. That hasn't happened in 40 years. (Well, 30 since the hoax theories started popping up in print.)
-------
No that would happen after a proper investigation is set in motion, and witnesses are sworn in to testify. And all documents are opened to the public.


Watergate is a great example. A night watchman finds a piece of tape holding a lock open and removes it. He returns later to find that the lock has been taped over again. This prompts a sweep of the building that catches five burglars, none of whom sell out their handlers. And yet, there's a trail that can be followed from these relative fleebs all the way to the White House. In less than two years!

So where's the Apollo 'tape'? In all this time, hoax proponents should be able to identify it. But they don't, or won't.
--------
Poor example sorry



I think it's about time that our putative genius stop asking questions and start formulating solid answers.
-----

Well why dont you start formulating answers. LOL.

Thing that you are missing is that for every individual that doesn't believe we went to the moon, their reason for not believing is different person to person. For one person it could be the obviously fake photographs, another the astronauts not jumping higher than a person on Earth on the videos, another could be the flag moving, or the fake cheesy Disney dialogue (where are the f-bombs ?), the radiation belts, the body language of the Astronauts during the press conference, the fact that we (as a world) havent been able to repeat the experiment by going back after 40 years, etc etc



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thing that you are missing is that for every individual that doesn't believe we went to the moon, their reason for not believing is different person to person. For one person it could be the obviously fake photographs, another the astronauts not jumping higher than a person on Earth on the videos, another could be the flag moving, or the fake cheesy Disney dialogue (where are the f-bombs ?), the radiation belts, the body language of the Astronauts during the press conference, the fact that we (as a world) havent been able to repeat the experiment by going back after 40 years, etc etc


All of which have been demonstrated, many times, to be the result of false assumptions, misunderstandings, lack of knowledge, failure to research or just plain gullibility in the face charlatans. In other words, it's almost as if, having chosen to believe that the moon landing was a hoax, they grasp any straw to affirm that belief. The question is why choose to ignore the evidence? What is the personal agenda? Hatred of science? Hatred of intellect? Hatred of America? Hatred of progress? Hatred of learning?


Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by DJW001]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I didn't think he could top previous hypocrisy, but there you go... I was wrong.



Originally posted by FoosM
...most Apollo propagandist dont want to touch his videos even though the thread is about him. They rather make sweeping allegations of that his research is invalid, poorly done, or previously debunked.

Oh boy, PRICELESS.

"most Apollo propagandists" - no sweeping allegation there, oh no...

And here's a point by point demolition of a Jarrah White video:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WHERE'S YOUR POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL?

If you can't provide one, you are a HYPOCRITE. Would you like me to post another, so you can choose to ignore MORE of them, and make more of those sweeping allegations you so despise?



And this is a problem why?

Tell us FoosM, are a you a flat earth believer? If not, WHY not?

I can post lots of flat earth claims and videos if you want... but wouldn't you agree that I would be wasting the forum's time on UTTER garbage?
Once something is deBUNKED, it is not worthy of prettying up and retelling.


What!? Do you happen to watch his videos with your eyes closed, fingers in your ears yelling "laalaalaalaalalaaa" ? What else you got?

And there, you hypocrite, is a perfect example of the lala behavior. What an unbelievable faux pas!!! Well done, FoosM.


The fall of NASA and as you have noticed, its working.

Which bit of NASA fell, precisely? Which journalist/media outlet/credible personality has loudly taken up the cause? What scientist? Can you point to the news stories?

Or is it just this single, woeful thread, posted by someone who is now afraid to return and admit to posting false information?

(Hi, WWu777!!)


that would happen after a proper investigation is set in motion, and witnesses are sworn in to testify. And all documents are opened to the public.

So where is it? Where's your Erin Brokovich? Do you reckon Jarrah's going to get the case up? - I hear Orly Taitz is looking for work... Anyway, you've had well over forty years - even if you had a glimmer of a case, the fact you couldn't even get it into mainstream media, let alone in the hands of a legal eagle, just shows that you guys must be completely incompetent.

But we knew that from the complete lack of science and general knowledge shown by the deniers, so it's no surprise.


Poor example sorry

"lalalala.." It's a familiar tune you are playing. The "Hypocritical Symphony".


Thing that you are missing is that for every individual that doesn't believe we went to the moon, their reason for not believing is different person to person.

And THERE'S your problem. The whole flimsy deck of cards simply relies on there being a few gullible, uninformed folk who don't know much about specific topics. When examined, none, not one of your stupid claims stands up to even the most basic scrutiny. And if you are called on to debate a single point, you run off and hide behind a new, equally stupid 'fact'.

Anway, FoosM, I'm waiting - WHAT IS YOUR BEST EVIDENCE? And will you debate it properly - point by (agreed) point?

Grow some cohones and go head-to-head on your very best evidence for the hoax.


What are you afraid of?


Surely the truth will win out?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by zvezdar
Question for the likes of FoosM. Its been stated numerous times in this thread that in order to hoax the Apollo landings, there would have needed to be a significant effort on the part of NASA to stage the video, radio signals etc. No one has disputed this (the only argument has been whether it was more difficult to stage a hoax or do the real deal).
---
Obviously stage a hoax because people are gullible.
And NAZI's knew this
No lives lost except for those who talked.


So, where is the unedited footage? Where are the props?
----
What would you do with evidence if you committed a crime?
I dont know about you, but the first thing I would do is destroy it.


Why have none of the production crew come out and told their story?
---
Why would they risk their lives and careers?


Any physical evidence at all of a studio?
---
Many parts of this "studio" are in plain sight.


It would have taken a mammoth effort to produce the film and photographs that have been amassed from Apollo missions and yet any and all evidence has (apparently) been wiped clean.
----
No it wouldnt.
Your just making it larger than it is in your head.


While people quibble over whether a photograph is fake or not, no one has actually presented any physical evidence that tpoints to a hoax.
----
Yes they have, that includes the photographs.

All they can do is try and pick holes in what NASA has presented (and do a rather poor job of it).
No they do a great job, thats why it has endured.

So, where is the evidence?
---
Look for yourself



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Look for yourself


Why do the moon hoax believers act like the whole thing is just a movie and a few snapshots? The real evidence for the program is the scientific data, collected both through continual live telemetry and, of course, physical samples. NASA must have spent a lot of time and energy creating fake data that would fool every single geologist, astronomer, physicist, engineer and medical doctor on the planet. Start by finding your inconsistencies here (there are literally thousands more):

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.springerlink.com...

www.redorbit.com...

www.bu.edu...

Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by DJW001]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

even Shatner thought using a sextant in space was ridiculous


Well, If Captain Kirk thinks it's wrong, that pretty much wraps it up for those NASA fakers



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Once again, FoosM, your lack of research, and poor grasp of science and reality, is stunning:


...even Shatner thought using a sextant in space was ridiculous...


Firstly...it is easy to look it up, even online...computers could fail. The programs could "crash". The 'platforms' (the inertial guidance platforms, absolutely vital to guidance and orientation for navigation) could lose their alignment...'crash'...

The sextants were the emergency back-up method to re-align the inertial platforms. It occured, more than once. IF you actually did any research, you'd know this....

As to the "Shat"...note his age, when they are all sitting around, taking the trip down memory lane. He's relating a story from THE LATE 1960s...Whoopee Goldberg is a key, there...this show looks to be from sometime in the 1990s, or so, base don the actors' physical appearances...(Jonathon Frakes, sitting next to Nimoy, is from ST: TNG which debuted in 1987. He and Nimoy --- well, all THREE of them also directed some ST motion pictures, though Shat's [ST: V] was THE WORST
)...

So, there he is, "shootin' the Shat", and his memory is a bit like Swiss cheese. Firstly, he was NOT in an actual LM that flew...he was in the Simulator, based on his description (the stars in the windows, the gigantic stairs, etc).

Secondly, his description of the 'hammock' that the astronauts were in during landing is WAY wrong! They stood up during descent and ascent.

What he probably saw was just some netting, used to contain loose items in Zero-G flight.




[edit on 27 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Foos, quit being a jerk and format your posts like every single other poster on this thread.

Your drivel is bad enough without having to decode it.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Obviously not because most Apollo propagandist dont want to touch his videos even though the thread is about him. They rather make sweeping allegations of that his research is invalid, poorly done, or previously debunked.


Strange. I seem to recall addressing one of those videos point by point earlier in this thread. You were conspicuously silent then. Care to discuss those points now? One by one? Maybe pick your best case ...


you conveniently exclude NASA then claim he gets his material from other researchers.
when in fact many of his videos actually cite propagandists and NASA and uses one to contradict the other.


Exactly the video I was rebutting earlier. Care to discuss the most glaring 'contradiction' he's identified? Really discuss it?


Third, what are your sources? Clavius?


I cited all my sources in my posts. Not one mention of Clavius. Unlike you, I do my own homework, thanks.


What!? Do you happen to watch his videos with your eyes closed, fingers in your ears yelling "laalaalaalaalalaaa" ?


No, it would seem that's more like the way you read rebuttals.


The fall of NASA and as you have noticed, its working.


Hmmm ... must have missed that.


No that would happen after a proper investigation is set in motion, and witnesses are sworn in to testify. And all documents are opened to the public.


Which would itself happen if credible researchers uncovered some meaningful facts. We're waiting ... just waiting ... any time you're ready ...


Well why dont you start formulating answers. LOL.


I have. So have others in this thread. You should maybe respond to some of them.
right back at you.


Thing that you are missing is that for every individual that doesn't believe we went to the moon, their reason for not believing is different person to person. For one person it could be the obviously fake photographs, another the astronauts not jumping higher than a person on Earth on the videos, another could be the flag moving, or the fake cheesy Disney dialogue (where are the f-bombs ?), the radiation belts, the body language of the Astronauts during the press conference, the fact that we (as a world) havent been able to repeat the experiment by going back after 40 years, etc etc


All of which have been rebutted time and time again. Some of them in this very thread, although you've chosen not to discuss most of them.

Seems more likely that for some people, it's a distrust of authority; for others it's gullibility; for some, it's a practical joke; etc., etc. ...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Yet another example of starting with an agenda and then constructing a hypothesis to fit that agenda.

If these people want to expend their lives in the pursuit of a unicorn, then let them, but to seriously imagine that thousands of engineers plus the astronauts who actually flew those missions - fighter pilots are not exactly good stooges for a cover-up of this scale and duration - not to mention the evidence from tracking stations and now the footprints on the moon, if all that isn't proof enough then nothing will be.

This is, and has always been, one of the sillier conspiracy theories, and a 25 year old with a slide rule isn't going to fool anyone who isn't a fool to begin with.

I have always believed that the enormity of that achievement in the 1960s still looks like science fiction today, and people just can't believe we actually did it, but we did - deal with it world.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Retseh]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I think that the infamous and maddening "C rock" photo that has been a mainstay of the HBs for years has finally been put to rest.

I caught this on a thread over a Apollohoax.net:

www.flickr.com...@N05/4643351218/

It is a scan of the front of Avaition Week and Space Technology magazine from May 8th, 1972. The picture, as you will note, is the famous "C-rock", only, there is no "C" on the "rock".

Unless NASA has a wayback machine and the ability to track down old copies of magazines AND somehow delete the offending "C" without leaving a trace, this so-called "evidence" is deader than a doornail.

For some reason the image link won't work, just go to the Apollohoax link and click on it there.

apollohoax.proboards.com...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
...
apollohoax.proboards.com...
...


All good points above, and it is worth repeating that thread link... It's a fascinating insight into the tactics of Apollo deniers, and also goes into a lot of detail on many other 'issues', to a depth that clearly the last remaining deniers here at ATS haven't a hope of understanding.

Eg, thrust equations? Can you imagine Foosm and friends getting into those sort of discussions? They can't even stick to *one* issue and debate it - it's just endless flippant sentences, one 'reply' and then quickly dodge to something else.

Tragic.

Still waiting, FoosM, what's your BEST evidence and are you up to debating it properly? Or Exuberant, Dragnet, WWu, etc... NO-ONE?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Wow, the debunkers clearly won this round.

Despite this, I'd like to go back to the much-discussed issue of shadows.

Here is an image of shadows not being parallel enough:



The debunkers explanation is that it is a cause of uneven ground.

My question is: where is the uneven ground in the above picture? there is no uneven ground to justify the shadows not being parallel enough. It seems the shadows are the result of a spotlight in close distance.

Here is another image:



How come the above image is anything but a fake? the ground is right in front of the camera and totally even. There isn't the slightest piece of uneven ground. We are looking at a flat surface.

I am not necessarily implying that we didn't go to the moon. I am simply stating the obvious, that there is no uneven ground in the above pictures to cause the non-parallel shadows.

What do you debunkers think? please don't give me the standard "it's the ground that's uneven, stupid" answer, because it's clear the ground is even.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
because it's clear the ground is even.


Can you prove that statement? Because it isn't clear to me that the ground is even.

There are other issues at play in these pictures, but let's stick with the evidence for you unequivocal statement to start.

If the answer isn't already posted, I'll get to it tomorrow. (just so you know I didn't disappear.)

BTW, I realize this has nothing to do with you (I assume), but I am immediately skeptical of any image that is unusually small, cropped or unclear. Most people who are really interested in discussing the images will give a link to one of the main images sites like Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Not only do they have larger pictures, but they also have the context in which they were taken. In many cases you can find other pictures that will show the site from another angle, and that can show changes in terrain very well.


jra

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I am not necessarily implying that we didn't go to the moon. I am simply stating the obvious, that there is no uneven ground in the above pictures to cause the non-parallel shadows.


Firstly, here are some higher resolution versions of the two photos.

AS14-68-9487
AS11-40-5961

The lunar surface is never even. There are always bumps and mounds and various sized craters all over the place. Sometimes it can be hard to see since everything is just grey and it all blends together.

In both photos I see uneven terrain, but that's not the only thing that causes the non-parallel shadows. Perspective is another thing that affects the appearance of the shadows. If one were able to view these photos from above, looking down onto the surface, the shadows would look parallel, but when viewed from the surface looking towards the horizon, with the Sun behind you, the shadows will appear to converge. Or when looking towards the Sun, the shadows will appear to spread out.

I think the terrain only plays a small role in the appearance of non-parallel shadows these two photos. I think the main cause is just the effect of perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join