It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps the "solution" is much easier. The 16mm and tv films would be expected to match up EXACTLY. At least i believe this to be the solution.
Oh. hello. another wall of pointless text which provides nothing. Your continuous baseless claims bring us precisely nowhere. Just for a change, try answering the questions posed.
PattyD , the longer you go on not answering questions the lower your credibility goes.
I wonder: at what point does engaging this guy amount to exploiting for our own amusement someone who is clearly not well? How uncomfortable should I be with all this?
Quote: it is all FAKE, and confirmed so!
No, we've merely found another set of topics that you don't know anything about, can't get the facts straight on, and can't help shooting your mouth off about.
All those previous posts have been exhaustively and repeatedly debunked, exposing your colossal ignorance in the process. You just pretend those rebuttals don't exist.
If there is "incontrovertable evidence of/for" fraud, I haven't seen any from you. I've seen lots of handwaving, lots of "I don't see why this would happen, therefore it is evidence of fraud," and even more of "I don't actually have any qualifications to assess any of this, but I've got it into my head that Apollo is fake, so I will disregard anything anybody tells me that doesn't support my pet belief."
You don't know what the word "prove" means do you? A problem with a rocket that the engineers know they can fix is certainly NOT proof of anything fake, no matter how many times you repeat it without paying attention to your answers.
Your cavalier misunderstanding of relevant facts, your ignorance of the applicable sciences, your commission of elementary errors, and your inattention to your critics' responses would hardly qualify your overall argument as even remotely credible.
Nor will this be the first (or even the second, third, or fourth) time you've been entirely mistaken about LM guidance and control. Keep in mind that you come to this discussion with a huge degree of "fail" behind you on this topic.
Patrick claims, on the one hand, that NASA was incapable of launching a rocket, with 3 astronauts inside, capable of reaching the moon. OK, an unevidenced claim. Patrick also claims that NASA launched a mission which was entirely capable of remotely, by automation, capable of landing on the moon and deploying military hardware. Another unevidenced claim. I leave it to any readers to spot the incongruity.
Originally posted by decisively
My point is, looking at exhaust products, one may be able to catch the perpetrators in a liereply to post by sputniksteve
For the sake of argument, lets say this is "real", and in addition, let's say some rocks were collected from right next to the lander in the shade. Those rocks might be expected to have a great deal of water on them. If it was powder collected, water might be expected to be admixed with the soil. This, because as the lander was coming down, it was pushing a gallon of hot(space steam), but rapidly cooling water, every second into the cooling/shaded lunar soil, the soil right there under the LM.
What was the water content of the contingency sample rocks ? Were any rocks collected in the shade ? If they were not collected in the shade, was this because the PERPS were aware of this card that i am trying to play ? They want to counter me by saying , "No decisively, we collected all of our rocks from sunny soil, way too hot to hold on to any water exhaust."edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "(space steam)", comma
As I was saying, the Apollo Fraud PERPS are extremely averse, to the point of essentially "blacking out" each camera in turn, simultaneous documentation of Armstrong's contingency sample collection by tv and 16 mm modalities.