Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by debunky


HA!

Yeah....we can only wish that number 'V' had been skipped!!!

(I didn't get to go, but there's a great movie theater nearby...a cinema 'n brewhouse that had a showing of Shatner's....errrmmm...'masterpiece'...the other night, along with two blokes to do a running commentary of jokes and heckling, a'la "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" style.....)

Oh, and "Larry Luckenbill" as Spock's...."brother"??? Priceless! (SO, it isisn't just the Shat who's to blame...the screenwriters share responsibilty too....) For those who don't know, Mr. Luckenbill is best referred to as the great Lucille Ball's son-in-law...he was (or still is, don't know) married to little Lucy Arnaz....

Trust me, ST geek from WAY, way back....

That's why I KNOW this crank case from Down Under ("JW") is loopy....he's way late to this game, and doesn't have a clue. Can't hold a candle to real researchers...

A little trivia-spotting (glaring continuity mistake, just one of many) from "Shatner's debacle" (ST V: 'The Final Frontier') is the scene with Spock and the 'gravity boots, with Kirk and McCoy in the turbolift shaft....watch the deck number signs in between edits....priceless!

www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by ppk55
For anyone who's tried to take a photo from a car going over medium bumps, even at 1/250 shutter speed, you're still going to get a blurred shot.

edit: I've tried doing that in the car, didn't work.

Did your car move at the same speed a moon rover would? No? There's your answer.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Did your car move at the same speed a moon rover would? No? There's your answer.

My car can move at any speed they did, the pictures would still blur if you hit the smallest bump.

Also, the time and motion study that proves they couldn't have taken as many photos as they did (link on previous page) forgot one thing. The poor astros were always falling over .. ruining experiments, and in no way taking photos.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Actually that video is just more prove that Star Trek V never happened. If those are "gravity boots" why do they have rockets? Also the deck numbers are all wrong.
It is all just a hoax to cover up the fact that they did forget a number between 4 and 6. They used a few snippets from an aborted startrek movie directed by Grace Lee Whitney. That attempt was such a failure, that she refused to be named as a director, and Shatner jumped in, to cover for her.
Need further proof? There is not a single copy of the alledged "Star Trek V" that has a consistent plot!

Think about it: All information you have about shatner directing a Star trek movie comes from Paramount! How come no other Movie company has been able to confirm this?
And how could they make Star Trek in the late 80ies, when Star Wars was way ahead of them in Special Effects as early as 1979!

Originally posted by ppk55

You know what, those thousands of photos just might be the problem. There's too many.

I think they took around 6000 of them during the moon landings, and just about all of them are perfectly exposed, framed, focused, etc.

Check out this time and motion study of whether it would be possible to shoot that many or not and make up your own mind.

www.aulis.com...

Just a suggestion, but this link provides (I think) a good graphical representation of the kind of shooting that was involved:

www.workingonthemoon.com...

A few steps. Bang bang bang on the shutter. A few steps more. Bang bang bang again. And whenever there's a moment when you're not doing something else, hit the shutter again for good measure.

Does the time and motion study account for the fact that it's easy to bang off 20 photos per minute with an auto-winder?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by CHRLZ
maybe they used 1/250 sec shutter speed and a wide angle lens, and maybe they even LOOKED at the terrain so they knew when *not* to shoot
[edit on 28-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Maybe they didn't take all those 6000 photos as the time and motion study seems to prove.

For anyone who's tried to take a photo from a car going over medium bumps, even at 1/250 shutter speed, you're still going to get a blurred shot.

Not so with images posted in the link above. Maybe you're right, maybe they looked at the terrain, and waited .. then waited, and then went, NOW.

edit: I've tried doing that in the car, didn't work.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by ppk55]

Are you the guy who claimed to be a cinematographer because if you are man I hope who ever employs you NEVER see's your posts becuase you know NOTHING about photography or exposure.

Lunar rover top speed 8 mph fast walk is 3mph NO problem taking pictures at 1/250th of a second even over the odd bump did you take into account things like focal length of lens depth of field etc.

Also in 1/250th of a second how far did it move forward at max speed about 0.6 inches and over the bump how far would the travel be.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

The varied series of outlets around the world were all fed the same kind of corrupted information as were all the news agencies and other media outlets during the 9/11 scam - please smarten yourself up on the dastardly nature of NASA and all other governmental agencies. The facts I am pointing actually made it much EASIER to fool the ordinary workers rather than having made it more difficult.......none of them were the wiser and still aren't. ONLY the spiritually enlightened in Christ through the Holy Spirit are well enough informed to have even the slightest clue as to what's really going down. This is why you see not much of a protest as the Americans lay back and watch themselves becoming imprisoned - made slaves to the Fascist state that is the America of today.......I say it again - WAKE UP YOU FOOLS

By the freaking way....... NASA receives its marching orders from the Department of Defense - aka the War Department - You live in a Fascist dictatorship run by the Masonic/Zionist's - false Jews every one of them.....Khazarians with not an ounce of Semitic anything in them. You have all been duped and you walk in a stupor of your own making and of your own choosing.........and I DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR ANY OF YOU......

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitruvian fro SPELLING ONLY


[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitruvian]

I don't know what to say. I just feel so ... unclean.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitruvian fro SPELLING ONLY

And THAT is a damn shame.......

reply to post by Vitruvian


Wow... just wow. I think you may have strayed somewhat off topic there. Just to keep this thread a bit focussed, I would like to point out that these conspirators of yours also churned out reams of hard data that seemed to convince scientists, engineers and doctors that it was legitimate. That's an awful lot of work for the DoD!

Here's a thought. And an invitation.

Conspiracy theorists, all. Forget about the pictures. Forget about the Van Allen belts. Stop watching those YouTube vids for a few. (You should really take some time out from that, anyway. Get some fresh air, marvel at a sunrise, or something). But answer just one question for me.

If you could prove that the moon landings were faked ... conclusively prove it ... to me ... this evening ... if you could produce irrefutable, non-contestable evidence that Neil and Buzz and all the others are liars, and I'm just a suggestible dupe ...

What have you proved? What does it mean? What do we do about it? How does it change our perception of the world we live in?

Don't just shoot from the hip. Think about it. I'll be happy to respond to reasoned answers from the hoax community, but I need you to explain for me what a hoax would mean for me by telling me what it means for you.

Then maybe I can understand why you find Jarrah White's tired arguments so compelling.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Vitruvian

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Vitruvian fro SPELLING ONLY

And THAT is a damn shame.......

Hey bro FRO yo info i have a digree in Inglish Litho..

I've always believed the moon landings to of been a hoax and most people i've talked to about the subject also have the same views.

America is the most corrupt country in the world, always have been, but they'll get theirs soon.

What goes around, comes around.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Did your car move at the same speed a moon rover would? No? There's your answer.

My car can move at any speed they did, the pictures would still blur if you hit the smallest bump.

Also, the time and motion study that proves they couldn't have taken as many photos as they did (link on previous page) forgot one thing. The poor astros were always falling over .. ruining experiments, and in no way taking photos.

Hahaha that video is hilarious, seriously... If he isn't connected to some sort of cable/harness, then i'm not human.

By the way... Why can't you see any stars in the sky??? Oh i forgot, you can't see stars from inside a building.

Originally posted by docjohnson9


I've always believed the moon landings to of been a hoax and most people i've talked to about the subject also have the same views.

America is the most corrupt country in the world, always have been, but they'll get theirs soon.

What goes around, comes around.

Whatever. (And without agreeing with your contention.) How does proving the moon landings were fake fix that?

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Hey bro FRO yo info i have a digree in Inglish Litho..

You have a degree in Lithography? Wow. That should be helpful to the debate.

Just wondering ... WTF is a degree in Litho, and why should it influence my estimation of your qualifications to argue ... well, argue anything, really.

Originally posted by docjohnson9
Hahaha that video is hilarious, seriously... If he isn't connected to some sort of cable/harness, then i'm not human.

By the way... Why can't you see any stars in the sky??? Oh i forgot, you can't see stars from inside a building.

Omg you're so right. Why didn't I see this before? I must retract all my statements. It really was a HOAX!!!

I am delighted to see this website has highlighted the work of Jarrah White. Being a personal friend and fellow investigator into the Apollo project as well as other faked space missions prior to Apollo, I completely concur with the original assessment of originator of this thread.

If you haven't watched White's Radioactive Anomoly, you are in for quite a treat.

Radioactive Anomoly

This is a playlist with the entire video series easily watched in order...

After being attacked for some time about the radiation issue, specifically the lie from the Apollo report stating no major solar events occured during Apollo missions I went to the National Geophysical Data Center to see for myself. Not only was I amazed at the sheer volume of Standard (chokes) solar flares, I was amused to find that all but one Apollo mission, (supposedly) took place concurrently with multitudes of MAJOR SOLAR FLARES.

You can look these up for yourself at the following website. Click on the CFI listing of MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, by DATE, or CFI IMPORTANCE.


Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that cannot be found on the NOAA/NGDC server anymore...Hmmm....If anyone here can find the new location for the CFI listings please post it here in this thread or feel free to PM me.

I have investigated every angle of the radiation issue over the past few years. I have a list of websites, articles, and information about the true nature of space radiation if anyone would like a copy for their own perusal. It's just a smidge of what I have poured over during my time researching this issue. But, it is more than enough to convince even the most die hard fan of Apollo that NASA has obviously pulled a fast one on the entire world!

I have a personal series of videos which explain to the layman, as well as most studious, why radiation was the main, and final block to manned exploration of space within, and beyond the Van Allen Radiation belts.
The latest of which sums up comments/programs describing the DEADLY/HAZARDOUS nature of radiation in space beyond and within the magnetosphere.

Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem 7 End of the Lies

For all these many years, NASA has relied upon the general publics ignorance of the true nature of space, and the deadly doses of radiation awaiting the unwary traveller.

That said, I would like to point out that it doesn't take a space physicist to see/hear the evidence painting Apollo and other missions as a fraud.

All one has to do, is listen to, and watch the actual launches, and launch transmissions to observe the faking of space missions NASA has pulled on us.

Lunarcy: NASA's Face Lift-Off Part I (Rocketing 2 Realism)

NASA's Face Lift-Off Part II (Launching Awareness)

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
I am delighted...
I have a list... if anyone would like a copy...
it is more than enough...
I have a personal series of videos...

Hi, Un4g1v3n1, welcome to ATS!! Lovely to see you have just joined, and immediately began arguing by Youtube.

You'll notice above that I have trimmed your post a little - anything that wasn't actually an argument, I got rid of.

Oh wait. There's nothing left. What a terrible shame.

And given your 'stuff' has been deBUNKed elsewhere, why would anyone bother to debate anything you post, given that you can't be bothered to explain it in your own words or actually CITE credible sources (no, that does not include your own stuff, or Youtube).

I've never seen so much handwaving in a single post.

Now if you have the guts to actually debate A SPECIFIC TOPIC and go through it point by point, I CHALLENGE you to do so. Pick your VERY BEST proof. (I'll be very happy if it's radiation...) And we'll go through it, using scientific principles and proper methodology.

Rules are simple:
- all points must be agreed/conceded before proceeding
- only credible information from expert sources is admissable
- videos from anonymous Youtube users are not admissable
- videos from credible sources may be used, but only if they are properly cited and the points are made by way of 'screenshots' and annotations.
- handwaving and personal opinions are not allowed - claims must be measurable
- any ad hominem attacks will result in the appropriate action from moderators.

I agree in advance to all the rules. If you don't like any of them, explain why.

Originally posted by docjohnson9


By the way... Why can't you see any stars in the sky??? Oh i forgot, you can't see stars from inside a building.

Doc, a quick question, is the Space Shuttle and ISS fake?