Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 14
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...=1937s

And while your at it, explain why they faked this footage, if in face they could have just filmed it if in fact they could have gone to the moon.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by exportgoldman
 



< snip > how about you explaining how the greatest country in the world couldn't muster up a few AV leads, and insisted the networks take second hand footage off a projector eh?


In other words, you cannot find a source that supports the statement you made, so you are resorting to name calling and rhetoric. If you had done the least amount of research, you would know that for reasons of bandwidth, the TV camera on Apollo 11 was of a unique slow scan design incompatible with network NTSC scanning standards. The networks simply could not "plug in" to the feed. It had to be converted by what today seems like a primitive analog process:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 3/30/13 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by exportgoldman
 



And while your at it, explain why they faked this footage, if in face they could have just filmed it if in fact they could have gone to the moon.


Please specify which time mark the footage you consider to be faked is at. Probably you are referring to the idiotic claim that the view of the distant Earth was "faked" in near Earth orbit. This has been discussed many times here on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 





A moon mission is very different, can't be tested independently to verify it, etc.




Originally posted by DJW001

A Moon Landing is not some sort of generalized principle that needs to be confirmed by repeated experiment; it is an historical event. As such, it is subject not to scientific standards of evidence, but historical standards of evidence. As it is, both the scientific data collected and the historical documentation support each other.



That's so ridiculous. It is subject to the same scientific standards of evidence as anything else. No matter how significant or historic ithe event, it must stand up or else it falls by applying the same standards.


You fail to understand the difference between scientific and historical methods. It is claimed that on June 6, 1944, 156,000 men were transported across the English Channel and landed on beaches in Normandy under heavy enemy fire. This is absurd on the face of it, and the feat has never been duplicated in seventy years. By your reasoning, D-Day never happened, right? Do you see the fallacy here?


It's never been done in 40+ years since then.


See above.



Originally posted by DJW001

But it was done every few months over a period of three years! In any event, your premise is completely fallacious. No-one has built the Eiffel Tower in 100+ years, therefore the Eiffel Tower cannot exist.


But the difference is

We don't want to build another Eiffel Tower, but we can build it.

We want to go to the moon, but we cannot. And every excuse in the book cannot change that fact .


Correction: we do not want to go back to the Moon badly enough. We have the technological know how to do it, but it is extremely costly. There is insufficient motivation to undertake a manned program when unmanned spacecraft are just as effective and less expensive. And all the empty rhetoric in the world cannot change that fact.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Correction: we do not want to go back to the Moon badly enough. We have the technological know how to do it, but it is extremely costly. There is insufficient motivation to undertake a manned program when unmanned spacecraft are just as effective and less expensive. And all the empty rhetoric in the world cannot change that fact.


Why do ATS Moderators give such trashy immatue comments such as this one is a pass? Beyond me!

Anyway, just for his enlightenment: (why do I even waste good energy?) The so-called 'Apollo landings' were nothing but a series of psy-op tele-hoaxes that laid the groundwork for all of the more recent false flag events perpetrated by the Bush/Obama team.

So DJW001...........APOLLO WAS A TELE-HOAX and you fell for the scam. That one and the many others that followed. Along with the many serious minded researchers here on ATS - I laugh - I guffaw

edit on 30-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by POXUSA

Originally posted by DJW001
Correction: we do not want to go back to the Moon badly enough. We have the technological know how to do it, but it is extremely costly. There is insufficient motivation to undertake a manned program when unmanned spacecraft are just as effective and less expensive. And all the empty rhetoric in the world cannot change that fact.


Why do ATS Moderators give such trashy immatue comments such as this one is a pass? Beyond me!

Anyway, just for his enlightenment: (why do I even waste good energy?) The so-called 'Apollo landings' were nothing but a series of psy-op tele-hoaxes that laid the groundwork for all of the more recent false flag events perpetrated by the Bush/Obama team.

So DJW001...........APOLLO WAS A TELE-HOAX and you fell for the scam. That one and the many others that followed. Along with the many serious minded researchers here on ATS - I laugh - I guffaw

edit on 30-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt


Perhaps the moderators gave it a pass because they didn't consider it trashy, or "immature"? It certainly doesn't have the usual hallmarks of trashy, ranting, or immature posts...things like frequent misspellings, random capitalization, or snide digs at other posters. Maybe I'm missing something (being one of those unenlightened folks who actually has done all the math, studied the engineering, and believes that the moon landings actually did happen), but the post you're up in arms about certainly doesn't seem objectionable to me. *shrug*

Returning to the topic of discussion, do you have any actual evidence that the video footage in question is faked? Perhaps a theory on how it was faked (or could have been, using late-1960s era video technology)? That's one of my biggest personal problems with the entire idea that the landings were faked...I've *worked* with the kind of gear available for broadcast TV production in the late 1960s, and based on my own limited experience (and based on conversations with old-timers who used that gear a lot more (and a lot more competently) than I), faking the TV footage for the early Apollo flights would've been at least as hard as the actual missions were...and for the later flights, when higher frame-rate video was used, the difficulty gets geometrically worse.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Brother Stormhammer because: COMPILE-TIME ERROR: MISMATCHED PARENTHESES. STEP ABORTED, RETCODE S0C7



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Perhaps the moderators gave it a pass because they didn't consider it trashy, or "immature"? It certainly doesn't have the usual hallmarks of trashy, ranting, or immature posts...things like frequent misspellings, random capitalization, or snide digs at other posters. Maybe I'm missing something (being one of those unenlightened folks who actually has done all the math, studied the engineering, and believes that the moon landings actually did happen), but the post you're up in arms about certainly doesn't seem objectionable to me. *shrug*


Ma'am.........Did you perchance miss the point of my comment and take me a mite too seriously?

In the study of rhetoric there is a category that deals with the notion of 'irony' as a means of sardonic expression - sarcastic even - if the situation calls for that. So, to explain, I sometimes set forth a comment or two in a somewhat sardonic (scornful) manner as in "Why do ATS Moderators give such trashy immature comments such as this one is a pass? Beyond me!"

edit on 30-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Irony doesn't always come across in a text-based medium....particularly when I'm only on my first pot of coffee


"Ma'am"?!
*underlines the "Brother" in "Brother Stormhammer"



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
edit on 30-3-2013 by captainpudding because: reconsidered post



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Am I just supposed to take you word, sorry but your post is a joke



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It's not a good idea to take anybody's word on the internet without some verification or supporting citations. Just remember that while the above advice applies to posters here on ATS, it also applies (and doubly so) for anything you read on sites that have a vested interest in your belief / support. If they're trying to sell you a DVD or a book detailing their New and Fantastic Theory (tm), be very skeptical. If they're trying to sell you metal-infused resin blocks, mystical crystal talismans, or splinters of the True Cross, be very skeptical.

That said, in my opinion, you should elaborate on your comment..."Your post is a joke" doesn't really add anything to the discussion other than rancor. On the other hand "Your post is a joke because (insert list of reasons)" might lead to amplifications, explanations, and a general increase in information content.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

You fail to understand the difference between scientific and historical methods. It is claimed that on June 6, 1944, 156,000 men were transported across the English Channel and landed on beaches in Normandy under heavy enemy fire. This is absurd on the face of it, and the feat has never been duplicated in seventy years. By your reasoning, D-Day never happened, right? Do you see the fallacy here?


Yes, I do see the fallacy - of your analogy.

D-Day was not considered a technological achievement like Apollo was. D-Day was essentially a logistical achievement. This is a significant difference which you ignore.

D-Day was observed first hand by many, many people - as it happened, while Apollo was an event we saw on TV.. That is another significant difference you ignore.

Here's the most significant difference you ignore...

We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


You have the gall to accuse me of absurd arguments, after this display of blatant cherry-picking!!



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


Could you clarify that statement. I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted a manned mission to the moon (duplicate apollo) since the Apollo program ended.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by DJW001

You fail to understand the difference between scientific and historical methods. It is claimed that on June 6, 1944, 156,000 men were transported across the English Channel and landed on beaches in Normandy under heavy enemy fire. This is absurd on the face of it, and the feat has never been duplicated in seventy years. By your reasoning, D-Day never happened, right? Do you see the fallacy here?


Yes, I do see the fallacy - of your analogy.



Speaking of fallacies....



D-Day was not considered a technological achievement like Apollo was. D-Day was essentially a logistical achievement. This is a significant difference which you ignore.


Actually, both the D-Day landings and the lunar landings were, in their own ways, triumphs of engineering, rather than technological advancement. In the case of Apollo, the liquid fueled rocket engine certainly wasn't new, nor was inertial or celestial navigation. Digital computers weren't new, pressure suits weren't new. What *was* new was the scale of the undertaking. The basic technologies for a lunar mission had existed (in some cases) for the better part of 50 years.



D-Day was observed first hand by many, many people - as it happened, while Apollo was an event we saw on TV.. That is another significant difference you ignore.


"We", meaning you and I (assuming you're old enough) saw Apollo on television, true enough. On the other hand, there were hundreds of people watching Apollo with optical and radio instrumentation. Both events had a direct audience numbering in the thousands.



Here's the most significant difference you ignore...

We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


We never tried to duplicate D-Day? You *must* be joking. I'll use Wikipedia to save time on this one.
European Theater:
Operation Switchback - 9 Oct 1944

Operation Vitality - 24 Oct 1944

Operation Infatuate - 1 November 1944


Operation Dragoon - 15 August 1944
This one gets bonus points for being kicked off by a parachute infantry drop!

Operation Forager - June - November 1944
Multiple duplications of D-Day during Forager...Guam, Saipan, and Tinain are significant to me because I had relatives involved.

I could keep going...we executed amphibious landings in the Korean and Vietnam wars as well, but I thought that might be belaboring the point.

I don't know if I'd call your argument "absurd"...but let's try your logic on one of your own examples.
D-Day was an obvious fake. Very few if any of the current posters on ATS actually saw the event...in fact, there probably aren't very many people on Earth who directly witnessed it. All we have to go on is some grainy, badly-shot still pictures and newsreel footage (which could obviously have been faked. After all, Howard Hughes was working with the War Department, and had connections in Hollywood). It's also ridiculous to claim (as those D-Day disinfo agents supporting The Official Story want us to believe) that hundreds of thousands of troops crossed the English Channel supported by thousands of aircraft and ships. Look at the modern USN. We couldn't do that *TODAY*, with all our advanced communications and precision weapons, and you expect a rational person to believe they did it (repeatedly) in 1944 and 1945. Oh, please...

Sorry. I think I sprained something there. You tell me if the argument you put forth sounds absurd or not, when used on 'the other foot' as it were.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Another reason to believe (or not) Dr. Werner von Braun's credible theories. WvB says in this interview with Walter Cronkite, CBS News, reusable space shuttles could be used to travel to the moon and back. von Braun's estimate was 10 years (1982).



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Correction: we do not want to go back to the Moon badly enough. We have the technological know how to do it, but it is extremely costly. There is insufficient motivation to undertake a manned program when unmanned spacecraft are just as effective and less expensive. And all the empty rhetoric in the world cannot change that fact.


Sure, just like I could beat Michael Phelps in the 100m butterfly, but I don't want to badly enough!!

I could also be the heavywieght champion of the world in boxing, but I don't have enough money!

Those are the very same excuses you give for not going to the moon.

Except in your case, they actually tried doing it!!

It's not a 'lack of motivation, or a 'lack of money' - those are lame excuses.

NASA got all the money they requested. It was a disaster from the start. They said more money was needed to get the project back on track. So they got more money, and it changed diddly squat.

Sure enough, they asked for more money! A LOT more.

They didn't get it, though,

Why? Because more and more money won't solve their real problem - severely lacking in required technologies.


. . '



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by turbonium1
We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


Could you clarify that statement. I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted a manned mission to the moon (duplicate apollo) since the Apollo program ended.


You don't know about Constellation? There's much info online....



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



Yes, I do see the fallacy - of your analogy.


This is going to be hilarious.


D-Day was not considered a technological achievement like Apollo was. D-Day was essentially a logistical achievement. This is a significant difference which you ignore.


Really? Floating tanks are not a technological achievement? As for Apollo,it, too, was essentially a logistical achievement. It was expensive not because it was difficult to design using well established principles and technologies, but because it required a vast manufacturing infrastructure. Do you have any idea what sort of logistics are involved in manufacturing and storing the quantities of Liquid Oxygen involved?


D-Day was observed first hand by many, many people - as it happened, while Apollo was an event we saw on TV.. That is another significant difference you ignore.


Only people who claim to have been on the scene can be considered witnesses, and they were all soldiers. Soldiers follow the orders of their governments, and governments lie. For all we know, veterans of D-Day have all been perpetrating a false Official Story all these years, just as the 500,000 participants in the Apollo program supposedly have. What's more, no-one was even able to watch D-Day on television! So how do historians determine that factuality of these historical events? Do they attempt to recreate D-Day with live ammunition, as though it were a scientific experiment that needs to be replicated? Or do they examine the documentation and physical evidence?


Here's the most significant difference you ignore...

We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


Wrong on both counts.






You have the gall to accuse me of absurd arguments, after this display of blatant cherry-picking!!


You do not seem to understand what the expression cherry picking means.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by DJW001

You fail to understand the difference between scientific and historical methods. It is claimed that on June 6, 1944, 156,000 men were transported across the English Channel and landed on beaches in Normandy under heavy enemy fire. This is absurd on the face of it, and the feat has never been duplicated in seventy years. By your reasoning, D-Day never happened, right? Do you see the fallacy here?


Yes, I do see the fallacy - of your analogy.



Speaking of fallacies....



D-Day was not considered a technological achievement like Apollo was. D-Day was essentially a logistical achievement. This is a significant difference which you ignore.


Actually, both the D-Day landings and the lunar landings were, in their own ways, triumphs of engineering, rather than technological advancement. In the case of Apollo, the liquid fueled rocket engine certainly wasn't new, nor was inertial or celestial navigation. Digital computers weren't new, pressure suits weren't new. What *was* new was the scale of the undertaking. The basic technologies for a lunar mission had existed (in some cases) for the better part of 50 years.



D-Day was observed first hand by many, many people - as it happened, while Apollo was an event we saw on TV.. That is another significant difference you ignore.


"We", meaning you and I (assuming you're old enough) saw Apollo on television, true enough. On the other hand, there were hundreds of people watching Apollo with optical and radio instrumentation. Both events had a direct audience numbering in the thousands.



Here's the most significant difference you ignore...

We;ve never tried to duplicate D-Day, while we HAVE tried to duplicate Apollo. .


We never tried to duplicate D-Day? You *must* be joking. I'll use Wikipedia to save time on this one.
European Theater:
Operation Switchback - 9 Oct 1944

Operation Vitality - 24 Oct 1944

Operation Infatuate - 1 November 1944


Operation Dragoon - 15 August 1944
This one gets bonus points for being kicked off by a parachute infantry drop!

Operation Forager - June - November 1944
Multiple duplications of D-Day during Forager...Guam, Saipan, and Tinain are significant to me because I had relatives involved.

I could keep going...we executed amphibious landings in the Korean and Vietnam wars as well, but I thought that might be belaboring the point.



You first claim D-Day has never been duplicated..

"..the feat has never been duplicated in seventy years"

And now you claim D-Day has been duplicated..

"Multiple duplications of D-Day during Forager...Guam, Saipan, and Tinain.."


IHow can you expect a reply, if you don't even know what your own position is!





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join