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: 85
377
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Right. Bring on the puppets.
Line 2.




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 





Once again foos tries to change the subject. I asked a question. You, and others, have alleged that the mission was faked by prerecording the entire mission. How would that have worked?
Transcripts have nothing to do with it.
Now please, answer the question.


No he's NOT. Well, this thread isn't entirely about just one subject if you even bothered to view the video. DERP!

and yea.. the thread IS entirely about NASA it's anomolous data.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Wow! Aren't you going to feel like an idiot when the YouTube puppet invasion begins!



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Here is a perfect example of what it's like to debate Apollogists....



Once caught being an idiot, this bambino troll straight lied about his comments. I guess it never occured to him to admit he was wrong and live with it. Instead he took the same route as all Apollogist trolls.

Anyone who thinks these morons are going to admit they may be mistaken is barking up the wrong waving flag pole...

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   


This one was for fun...

But it does point out a very obvious point that seems to be oblivious to Apollogists.

Of all the falls by the Apollonots, not once do we hear any of them ask their cohorts in comedy to check them over to see if their suit is torn, hoses knocked loose...etc.

Instead, we mostly hear laughter. There was no concern for life-threatening consequences from their falls. NOT ONCE!

Talk about unrealistic. If Apollogists only had a brain!!!
[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]


[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   


At the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference Neil Armstrong was asked what stars he coud see during the solar corona experiment. He stated he was unable to see stars on the daylight side of the moon, by eye alone, without looking through the optics, then had a lapse of memory of which stars he could see during the experiment. Right after that, Collins, who was 'suppose' to have been orbiting the moon in the CM, claimed he couldn't remember seeing any. The knee-jerk reaction of Armstrongs at Collins statment is priceless. Great master-card commercial potential with that one...LOL

The video above points out three REAL astronauts who are not afraid to speak about the wonderous sight of the stars in mere LEO!

Now, can you imagine travelling a half a million miles, to the moon and back, and totally ignoring commenting on the amazing view of the stars. Because when it came to talking about the stars, the Apollonots were mum on the subject. I suppose the starless moonset required them to keep their mouths shut on the topic.

What a sad, embarrasing item to add to the list of embarrasments for these pilots who had to fake their missions for an ardent NAZI they worked for. Von Braun, and his host of NAZI propulsion scientists, must have had a quite a laugh at the gullibility of Americans, and citizens around the globe!
[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Listen to poor Collins trying to explain the lack of emotion in the voices of men who were suppose to have been the first to behold the sight of the moon...

I guess being a test pilot means you become an automaton, incapable of emotion...

LOL


[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
Here is a perfect example of what it's like to debate Apollogists....



Once caught being an idiot, this bambino troll straight lied about his comments. I guess it never occured to him to admit he was wrong and live with it. Instead he took the same route as all Apollogist trolls.

Anyone who thinks these morons are going to admit they may be mistaken is barking up the wrong waving flag pole...

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]


Let me try to explain it with something simpler than radiation, its really a quite common concept.
Imagine I hold your head under water for 10 seconds. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 1 minute. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 5 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 10 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 50 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 5 days. Is water deadly?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
Here is a perfect example of what it's like to debate Apollogists....



Once caught being an idiot, this bambino troll straight lied about his comments. I guess it never occured to him to admit he was wrong and live with it. Instead he took the same route as all Apollogist trolls.

Anyone who thinks these morons are going to admit they may be mistaken is barking up the wrong waving flag pole...

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]


Let me try to explain it with something simpler than radiation, its really a quite common concept.
Imagine I hold your head under water for 10 seconds. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 1 minute. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 5 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 10 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 50 minutes. Is water deadly?
Imagine I hold your head under water for 5 days. Is water deadly?



If I smother you with deadly radiation from all sides for seven, eight, nine days....Would that be deadly...

The answer is yes, in case you can't figure that one out bub!

Is there a simpler way to help you understand?



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its quite simple torch2k, if you believe that man landed on the moon with NASA know-how, then you are going to have to address those anomalies in respect to people being on the moon.


Although we're entrenched in two different camps, at least so far, I respect this statement. But I'd ask that you respect the converse, which is that given the setting and situation, things that may seem suspicious at first glance may in fact have rather mundane explanations. In short, they may not be anomalies at all.


I dont see why this is so difficult to understand. If we go to other alien planets we should expect to encounter phenomena alien to us. From biology to physics. And so if NASA was truly curious about whats out there, as well as scientists studying NASA's research, then why are we not having open and honest discussions about these findings? Have you ever heard the explanation for the blue glowing astronauts? What do you think it is? Are you not curious considering you believe we went to the moon?


First, if you want an open and honest discussion, then let's have one. But let's cut out all the BS. Stop calling me an 'Apollogist' and I'll stop calling you a 'hoaxer'. (Neither of us have used those terms for each other personally, but you get what I'm meaning, no?)

Second, let's relax and take our time, you and I. Or anyone else that wants to join a sensible, meaningful debate. Or we'll hold this as a side debate, if that works. Apollo 11 is 40+ years ago in the books ... even if you want a win/lose debate, does it need to be solved by next Tuesday? Stop shooting from the conspiracist hip at me, and I'll stop firing trusty anti-conspiracist ammo at you.

Third, would you accept a prosaic explanation for an 'effect' if one was offered. And if you didn't accept same, would you state your counter-argument without resorting to name calling? Could you remain civil in the midst of a disagreement? That would be a HUGE improvement in any hoax discussion.


Think about it. When hoaxers say the shadows and the light looks strange in the photos. How many people actually say, 'well NASA discovered that on the moon shadows and light behave differently for some reason.'?


If we go to other planets, things will look strange! We will bring back images that will defy our sense of what seems normal. Are things behaving differently, or are our perceptions tricked by the strangeness of the context?

I snipped the rest. Do you want to rehash these arguments? Or perhaps start afresh?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
... and yet you fail to understand...

Fatality=Type+Intensity+Time of Exposure

All these 3 things are a factor.

You want to shower me 9 days with radiation? Please go ahead, as long as its the same kind and intensity Apollo Astronauts had to endure.
Want to shower me with the same kind for 300 days? (Mars Mission) No thank you.

Now: Are you willing to let me shower you with radiation, you get to choose the time frame, I get to choose Type and intensity?


Edit to add:
Oops... fell for it:
you didnt answer the question: Is water deadly?

[edit on 1-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


GOING over old ground the reason they DONT see the stars has been explained many times its the fact that their eyes were not given time to adjust looking away from the bright moon surface
and before any idiots claim its NOT BRIGHT have a look here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scroll down to outdoor light LOOK at Daylight Snow etc and compare with the Moon.

Thats why you can point a camera at the MOON and take a picture with very short shutter speed 1/250th -1/400th of a second and the MOON is correctly exposed AND NO STARS SHOW BECAUSE the STARS require exposures off SECONDS NOT FRACTIONS OFF A SECOND.

Look at any astrophotography site on the net TRY it for yourself then MAYBE even you will realise how this works


Your eyes adjust to the brightest object in field of view if you are out at night look at a street light see how manys stars you can see around it.
.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
... and yet you fail to understand...

Fatality=Type+Intensity+Time of Exposure

All these 3 things are a factor.

You want to shower me 9 days with radiation? Please go ahead, as long as its the same kind and intensity Apollo Astronauts had to endure.
Want to shower me with the same kind for 300 days? (Mars Mission) No thank you.

Now: Are you willing to let me shower you with radiation, you get to choose the time frame, I get to choose Type and intensity?


Edit to add:
Oops... fell for it:
you didnt answer the question: Is water deadly?

Fell for it? You compare water to constant, isotropic background radiation, including killer electrons, gamma ray bursts, x-ray flares, solar flares, constant solar wind, neutron radiation bouncing up at your feet from the 4 billion year irradiated lunar surface...And you expect to be taken seriously?

The only thing I fell for was having a momentary glimpse of hope that anyone with any potential for critical thought would respond to the radiation issue!

[edit on 1-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
... and yet you fail to understand...

Fatality=Type+Intensity+Time of Exposure

All these 3 things are a factor.

You want to shower me 9 days with radiation? Please go ahead, as long as its the same kind and intensity Apollo Astronauts had to endure.
Want to shower me with the same kind for 300 days? (Mars Mission) No thank you.

Now: Are you willing to let me shower you with radiation, you get to choose the time frame, I get to choose Type and intensity?


Edit to add:
Oops... fell for it:
you didnt answer the question: Is water deadly?[edit on 1-6-2010 by debunky]


Fell for it? You compare water to constant, isotropic background radiation, including killer electrons, gamma ray bursts, x-ray flares, solar flares, constant solar wind, neutron radiation bouncing up at your feet from the 4 billion year irradiated lunar surface...And you expect to be taken seriously?

The only thing I fell for was having a momentary glimpse of hope that anyone with any potential for critical thought would respond to the radiation issue!



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I fell for it, not you.

So:
Is water deadly? simple enough question: yes or no.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


GOING over old ground the reason they DONT see the stars has been explained many times its the fact that their eyes were not given time to adjust looking away from the bright moon surface
and before any idiots claim its NOT BRIGHT have a look here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scroll down to outdoor light LOOK at Daylight Snow etc and compare with the Moon.

Thats why you can point a camera at the MOON and take a picture with very short shutter speed 1/250th -1/400th of a second and the MOON is correctly exposed AND NO STARS SHOW BECAUSE the STARS require exposures off SECONDS NOT FRACTIONS OFF A SECOND.

Look at any astrophotography site on the net TRY it for yourself then MAYBE even you will realise how this works


Your eyes adjust to the brightest object in field of view if you are out at night look at a street light see how manys stars you can see around it.
.



Laughable!

Quick question for you...

The moons albedo is?

The Earths albedo is?

Then, let's see if you can name the astronaut who said the sight of the stars on the daylight side of the earth was mind-blowing?

You excuses are lame bub!



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


GOING over old ground the reason they DONT see the stars has been explained many times its the fact that their eyes were not given time to adjust looking away from the bright moon surface
and before any idiots claim its NOT BRIGHT have a look here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scroll down to outdoor light LOOK at Daylight Snow etc and compare with the Moon.

Thats why you can point a camera at the MOON and take a picture with very short shutter speed 1/250th -1/400th of a second and the MOON is correctly exposed AND NO STARS SHOW BECAUSE the STARS require exposures off SECONDS NOT FRACTIONS OFF A SECOND.

Look at any astrophotography site on the net TRY it for yourself then MAYBE even you will realise how this works


Your eyes adjust to the brightest object in field of view if you are out at night look at a street light see how manys stars you can see around it.
.



Laughable!

Quick questions for you...

The moons albedo is?

The Earths albedo is?

Then, let's see if you can name the astronaut who said the sight of the stars on the daylight side of the earth was mind-blowing?

Your excuses are lame bub!

How about you explain why they didn't mention them all the way to and from the moon as well? The very stars they were suppose to be navigating by.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Ahhhh I see you have posted some types!
Lets start with GRB, cause we all know how scary those are and prolly wiped out the dinosaurs right?

Indeed, what would have happened if one of the Apollo Missions ran into a GRB.

Oooops


A cosmic gamma-ray event occurring April 27, 1972 at 10.68 UT was observed by gamma-ray and X-ray spectrometers on Apollo 16 as well as by Vela 6A. Analysis has yielded a detailed time profile of the entire event, an energy spectrum covering three order of magnitude (2.0 to 7.9 KeV and 0.067 to 5.1 MeV) and a source location. A well-defined onset prior to the main impulse period and a probable precursor are reported. The total energy of the event over the observed range was 2 x 10 to the minus 4th power ergs/sq cm. The data indicate the presence of a hard component which persists during the entire event, with a softer variable component becoming dominant during the most explosive burst portion.


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now: Is Water Deadly? Surely you must be able to answer such a simple question?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join