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: 78
377
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.

So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?


ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and gave each other a star , for your attacks.





A completely content-free post, that required two edits...
indeed.

How's about.. you simply answer the question. Where was this 'water' you refer to, why should the Apollo missions have detected it, and how?


And yes, it's a trap. We know what it is about, and you clearly don't.

If I was you, I'd make a couple more ad hominems ... and then run from these vicious 'attacks'...
Added:

Apparently (i really don't know)


Well, perhaps you might like to find out... - HINT - is this water in large amounts? Is it 'free', ie in the form of droplets or puddles? How would Apollo have found it?

[edit on 29-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Yes it seems to be in very large amounts, but again i don't really know because it wasn't too long a go I was reading that there was no water on the moon..things have changed a lot. What I will read next week maybe things will change even more.

As a layman, I still don't understand why NASA couldn't of nailed the question when they had 6 landing opportunities of their choosing, was the technology not available to detect these molecules at the time and if not why didn't they make it their priority project over a 'go kart' and golfing ??



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and started each other, for your attacks.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


Pity doesn't work here, sparky. You make a false statement, you're going to get smacked. The reason we both "attacked" you (really? attacked? are you that pathetic?), is because your "proof" has been debunked on this thread multiple times already.




You really believe LRO is your best proof of the moon landing was real? Rolf! your laughably

debunked? nope it wasn't debunked



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


Huh?

What are you talking about? I didn't even mention the LRO.

And in the future, if you want to claim something is "laughable" or not "debunked", you need to cite some proof instead of just declaring it so.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nonamoose7
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.

So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?


ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that


Because they didn't land at the poles. And that is where all the detectable water is.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd


Because they didn't land at the poles. And that is where all the detectable water is.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nonamoose7



The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.


Links please?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nonamoose7
 


And please don't confuse what was said in 1970 with 2010.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nonamoose7
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.

So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?


ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that


Fair enough! And I guess this isn't something that easily pops up via Googling. You have to look a little deeper.

Here's the main reasons:

- It is mainly 'bonded' H2O, trapped in rocks/regolith either physically or chemically. The amounts, especially in non-polar regions are in fact VERY small per unit volume. It's only when you add it all up that it sounds impressive.

- Apollo was not geared up for properly 'vacuum sealing' and securing their specimens. To do so would have involved many technical difficulties and extra weight (ask any microbiologist about preventing contamination...). So it was always going to be very difficult to prove that any water in the returned samples was not 'contamination'. Finding water was not a serious mission objective, and would have only happened if there were large undeniable amounts returned..

- The water is mostly toward the poles, and Apollo missions landed more 'equatorially', for orbital mechanics reasons..

And yes, there were a few 'stunts', but NASA wasn't stupid (they did/do have PR experts, although sometimes it seems they are asleep). They could see that interest was waning after the first triumph, so they allowed the astronauts a little free rein to make things more interesting. And most of the stunts had some significant scientific content.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nonamoose7
The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.



WOAH!!! Like Tom said - definitely LINKS required for that claim!!!

(I'm happy to supply links for my post above, if required.)



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Buzz killer.


I was interested to see just how long it was going to take him to realize just what the "water" they found in the Apollo rock really was.

Interetingly enough, I have a paper from around 2007 stating definitively that there is no water in the lunar regolith from the Apollo missions.

So the techniques to find this water, usually buried inside beads of volcanic glass and found by a new type of ion mass spectrometry, are brand new.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by nonamoose7
The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.



WOAH!!! Like Tom said - definitely LINKS required for that claim!!!

(I'm happy to supply links for my post above, if required.)


Well I'm sure he's confusing the bugs found on Surveyor as native bacteria.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Buzz killer.


I was interested to see just how long it was going to take him to realize just what the "water" they found in the Apollo rock really was...


Heh heh. Sorry Tom. I think there needs to be a secret sign for when we are trying to get the claimants to do their own research, and have their very own "Oo-ooh... so that's why" moment.

It's certainly far better when they learn it by themselves - just doesn't seem to happen often enough..

Anyway, I look forward to finding out about these bacteria...


I might now have to introduce my own conspiracy theory. The water (and 'bacteria') was of course all deposited on the Moon BY Apollo missions. And you will be amazed when you find out why... but I'm afraid I can't tell you.

Oh, alright, it was for "terrafo

@#!$%^&*( ...

Carrier lost
Transmission ended - source no longer available.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Fantastic, the hoaxers are now going round and round in circles in their attempts to avoid explaining exactly how a hoax could have been executed.

I'll ask again: Explain how NASA faked the live TV feed that was broadcast from the moon. There were 4 radio telescopes/tracking stations that received the feed from the LM. One was not part of NASA's official network, while another received the feed without NASA's knowledge at the time. The press watched the live feeds coming in directly at these stations before being sent to NASA. The Australian stations were run by the CSIRO, and not NASA.

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.


You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
Fantastic, the hoaxers are now going round and round in circles in their attempts to avoid explaining exactly how a hoax could have been executed.

I'll ask again: Explain how NASA faked the live TV feed that was broadcast from the moon. There were 4 radio telescopes/tracking stations that received the feed from the LM. One was not part of NASA's official network, while another received the feed without NASA's knowledge at the time. The press watched the live feeds coming in directly at these stations before being sent to NASA. The Australian stations were run by the CSIRO, and not NASA.

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

Watch Jarrah Whites Moonfaker: Flagging the Dead Horses for a complete debunk of your tracking excuses. Dead horses mate!

Also, I don't think trying to trick intelligent people, awake enough to see the Apollo fraud, into a game of conjecture, is going to score you any new friends. I could be wrong, but this guy isn't biting...

Enjoy your Apollo Fairy Tales! May they ensure you a pleasant nights sleep mate!

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by zvezdar

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.


You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.


In case you missed it, NASA originally stated that the TELEMETRY was lost...Then revised their statements much later to excuse their lack of evidence by stating they had taped over them.

Always an excuse from the organization whose true moniker should stand for Never A Straight Answer.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.


Okay, your idea of jest aside let me ask you a few questions. How can you say my 'stuff has been debunked elsewhere? Watch the two videos, and please 'debunk' the clear, and obvious fact that the Apollonots themselves describe the launch as so turbulent, that they couldn't have been able to hit the right switch if they needed to, and yet we hear no sign of vibration in their voices? No strain on their vocal chords as they move to speeds exceeding Mach 4 or 5? I provide ample examples of the kind of stress, and vibration to shuttle pilots voices during a shuttle launch, and compare it to the steady, unwavering voices of Apollonots during their respective launches. NO ONE to date, has even come close to debunking that. Nice try with the unsupported claim however!!

My stuff on YouTube, as you so tenderly put it, is not only verifiable by NASA's own videos, and propaganda pieces, it is right their for the viewer to see for themself. Your ad hominem attack on YouTube as being an unworthy source for information aside, I find your challenge laughable.

Your attempt to define my first post as handwaving was a nice bit of ad hominem styled debate to begin with. I merely pointed out three videos, which I spent a great deal of time researching, and putting together to point out the fraud for those who will take the time to watch and investigate on their own. I guess that never entered your mind as a solution rather than your general, and irrelative comments you chose instead. Nice try, but your style is as old as the tired excuses made by propagandists since the fraud was first outed. And the pointing out of the transmissions lack of reality during launch, alongside the comments by the astronots about the violent nature of a Saturn V launch, shows an immense contradiction, easily recognized by those who will just take the time to notice it.

Since your greeting to me was instantly responded to by chopping my post to tiny bits, and attempting to mock it, I'll assume you have no desire for serious debate to begin with.

Pleasant Apollo Fairy Tale dreams to you!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM

Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?



Here, I'll help ole Charlie out on this one FoosM...

Moon Rocks. Rock solid evidence....

Wait for it...

Moon Rock?




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM

Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?



Here, I'll help ole Charlie out on this one FoosM...

Moon Rocks. Rock solid evidence....

Wait for it...

Moon Rock?




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join